Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediacrat

Mediacrat

Please do not refactor the discussion thread like that. It destroys the context of both the comments and the responses. That makes the eventual clean-up at the end of the discussion period extremely difficult. It also resulted in quite a few accidentally deleted comments. Suspicious votes may be noted as such in the discussion thread but should not be moved. This page is now unprotected. If I misplaced or mis-characterized someone’s comment, please move it appropriately. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Self-submission, non-notable, unencyclopediac—Trevor Caira 02:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VOTE NO -- DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE Jameth 02:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Nine edits. --Slowking Man 02:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  - Actually, 0 if this passes Vfd. Euphoria 02:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Self-submission, non-notable, unencyclopedic. --kooo 02:10, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't have time before the deletion swarm to make it more encyclopedic. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do NOT delete pls. 66.108.250.30 02:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. kooo covers it. Euphoria 02:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Internet Phenom.
Do not delete! 4.41.163.16 02:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE!!! unsigned vote by anon User: 68.44.34.197
Please do not delete this valuable historical reference. --68.104.109.88 02:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Totally undeserving of any mention. An attempt by a livejournal user to push his personal INTERNET DRAMA LOL into higher profile. silsor 02:16, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, it's pushing it to the "OMGz next level" and not higher profile. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Note that anonymous users may not vote. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Consign to the great bit-bucket in the sky post-haste. --Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This is, by far, the best "Delete" comment so far. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - I take that back. Geogre's comment was much better :( -Jameth 04:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedia and non-notable. Rhobite 02:17, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: About here, User:Ugen64 added Anonymous voters may not vote. If you have comments, register them in the "comments" section. and moved several anon votes below that line.
Delete, delete, delete. Extremely, if possible. --Slowking Man 02:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE. 24.18.234.161 02:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete - yet another reason friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wow, noted for future reference. -Jameth 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Do Not Delete! Much Historical Value!! --Youjustgroanboy 02:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Account's first edit. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Why wasn't this speedied? Reene ^✎ 02:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE !!! This is internet history. 24.19.179.207 02:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE* -- This is as valid an internet phenomenon as "w00t"; or any other internet related entry on wikipedia. kekekeke 9:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Account's first edit. Sockpuppet. Euphoria 02:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE - This is a valuable example of internet pop culture in the post-American century. -gracecat 02:22 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Account's first edit. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - I beg to differ. I am not a sockpuppet. I am a real person with real feelings. Please consider re-posting my vote in the "valid" column. -gracecat 02:42 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Apologies, and sorry. Most cases that look like this are, in fact, sock puppets at work. This one apparently is not. I was merely attempting to a) discourage the flood of largely spurious votes b) warn the user in question (later proven to be, in fact, multiple users) that this behaviour may be a blockable offence and c) identify to the aforementioned user that this was not helping the cause against deletion. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Even after going through the page history line by line, the context of this comment is uncertain. If I guessed incorrectly, please move it and the reply below and remove this caveat.)
      - Aw, shucks, I was just posting a response to that, but you beat me to my point with your intelligent compassion stick. -gracecat 04:25 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DO NOT DELETE*--Youjustgroanboy 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Voting twice does not make your account any less of a sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm not a sockpuppet =( --Youjustgroanboy 02:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Yes you are. Read the definition. We're not calling you names, it's just that you dont have any other edits in wikipedia. --kooo 02:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
      - Or perhaps technically the word for it is not "sock puppet", but "run-in voter" or so. Users who registered just to vote have generally not been counted before, IIRC. --kooo 02:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This 'historical reference' has about 200 google results . Patently uninteresting to anyone except the parties involved. Wikipedia is not a registry of petty internet conflicts. CXI 02:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Enochlau 02:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Amazingly formulaic "do not delete" votes from many anonymous parties and usernames with few edits. Please realize: The use of Wikipedia:Sock_puppets to influence a vote is grounds to be blocked from editing and does not help your cause. Really, who do you think you're fooling? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- A sock puppet is a fake identity of an existing user, these people are just creating accounts for a one-time vote after jameth requested his livejournal readers to do so. silsor 02:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  - I'd like it if we could add some text, either to Wikipedia:Sock puppets or maybe to a new Wikipedia:Run-in voters page, to explain that people showing up and registering just to get a vote isn't going to work. It's becoming more of a trend... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - That's an excellent idea. Where do we propose this formally? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Excellent idea. How about Wikipedia:Astroturf voters, or is that a copyright violation? --Calton 04:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - I'm afraid I don't know. If there's an official process, I don't know where to find it. What I've seen people do with proposed changes sometimes is to write up a draft version on a subpage and then ask experienced users for comments and support. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: DCEdwards1966 02:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Keep the petty LiveJournal dramas to LiveJournal. This did not "take over LiveJournal in the summer of 2004" except in the imaginations of the author(s). -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice - Taxman 02:35, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Relevent to only a tiny group that has it well documented elsewhere - Anarax 02:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- User:Mackensen moved this comment into the “disputed” section without comment. User:gracecat reverted the move.
Delete. Amazing the amount of effort that's been devoted to creating a totally pointless article and then to trying to prevent its deletion. JamesMLane 02:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's not pointless to the other 0.009% of the Internets. But thanks for recognizing my effort. -Jameth 03:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep omg this is teh awesomest article evar! Ugen624 02:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sadly, we do not permit plural voting for admins, nor the use of pocket boroughs. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't expect this kind of response. This is amazing. -Jameth 02:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hello, you must be new here. Read our guidelines on vanity pages. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry for not being WikiElite like you -Jameth 03:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Sorry on behalf of Fennec - he, like many others, may be jaded by the daily flood of dozens and dozens of people creating pages about themselves. I haven't been doing recent changes watch lately but I think we're starting to push the triple digits. silsor 03:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
      - Oh, understandable. I am assuming that some people on here don't get out of the house much and feel like the only authority they have in their lives is over the approval/deletion of entries on Wikipedia. That's ok. I used to feel the same way when I ran a BBS -- you know, that overwhelming sense of OMG SATISFACTION that you get when you are so OMG INTERNET POWERFUL!!! -Jameth 03:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        Don't make personal attacks. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        Sorry -Jameth 04:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        Yeah. We have a policy against them. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        Criticism of the cabal will not be tolerated. --Slowking Man 03:42, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
        There is no Cabal. fnord. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Sillydragon 02:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. GeneralPatton 02:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment: About here, anon User: 24.16.37.28 vandalizes the page by deleting many votes. Reverted by Mackensen
Delete with pwnage Rickyrab 03:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is my real vote - we don't need this crap on Wikipedia.
(Invalid) Keep. Sockpuppetisafake 00:00, 8 Dec 5281 (UTC) This is an invalid vote, of course. (Rickyrab)
Comment: Here, anon User: 24.16.37.28 again vandalizes the page by deleting many comments.
Will this page remain up even after the article is deleted? I really want to save these comments for my site. Lol INTERNET DRAMA Lol. Jameth 03:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This page will stay here if the article is deleted. silsor 03:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the response. I was asked to make a Wikipedia entry on these "events" because many people keep asking about it. I got sick of trying to explain it every single time. So, I decided Wikipedia would be an OK place for it. I guess it really isn't appropriate here. I sincerely apologize to anyone here who is annoyed/offended/whatever by the fact that I decided to write this up. After reading through Wikipedia policies and the above "Delete" comments, I also agree that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be removed. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I'll just stick this over on urban dictionary or something. -Jameth 03:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - Delete. You "guess" it isn't really appropriate? Your little story is your little story; don't now inflict it on "urban dictionary" (whatever that is); but, if it's so important to you and "many people", obtain your own website and upload it there. -- Hoary 05:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - Don't be mean. Or at least be funny about it. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)****Cheers to Jameth for backing down and apologizing. Cdc 23:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Adolescent-seeming hyperventilation about an Internet ephemera. Geogre 03:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Best delete comment so far. -Jameth 04:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DELETE. While quite detailed and well-written, this impacts such a negligable percentage of the Internet community that it fails to have relevance here. Feren 21:15, 7 Dec 2004 (CST)
- Thank you! It only took a few hours and I had nothing better to do today. Besides, it's a good reminder to everyone out there that nobody else really cares about ZOMG INTERNET DRAMA. -Jameth 03:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - You know, I don't think it's the sort of thing people need to be reminded of. It's pretty clear already. -R. fiend 07:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. →Raul654 05:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Man, and I thought those Slashdot morons were bad. DELETE. -R. fiend 07:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Trash. Delete. In the destructor with it. Anthony Appleyard 09:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Enough reasons above. utcursch 13:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
How is this any less relevant or interesting than the "Hello My Future Girlfriend" Wikipedia entry? The Mediacrat drama also comes complete with songs, remixes, etc. anon comment by User: 24.19.59.234
Delete and don't look back. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, delete. Do we really need a description of every online flamewar...? P Ingerson 18:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice, wiki is not a blog. Wyss 21:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
AAAAUGH! KILL IT BEFORE IT SPREADS! (that's a delete, for the record) [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, un-encyclopedic, and too many anons and socks. Jayjg 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, goodbye, adios, au revour, begone. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 03:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Kill this damn thing before it comes out on DVD. --Edeans 03:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd say "redirect to /dev/null", but there seems to be an article in the way. I guess I'll have to find some other bitbucket to put it in. --Carnildo 07:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete or at least rewrite. Having read the article I still don't know what Mediacrat means. The article neither informs nor explains and therefore it has no place in any encyclopedia. ping 07:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is no place in encyclopedia for this crap. Delete the originator of this garbage and his/its sockpuppets also. jni 08:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete blogcruft. Fire Star 17:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to some page on media and government control. This page itself is neologism and blogcruft. --Improv 22:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Kill it before it breeds. :^P Obvious vanity, a veritable plethora of talking hosiery...need I say more? - Lucky 6.9 21:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A ridiculous and unencyclopedic piece of vanity that contains a neologism, and if that were not enough, a bunch of sockpuppets spamming the VFD. Indrian 02:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'd consider reposting the entire thing as a BJAODN subpage, but this doesn't even deserve to be kept there. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:18, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web host or file repository. Do not BJAODN, do not collect $200. Gazpacho 14:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. —tregoweth 21:14, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
MOVED TO [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com ENCYCLOPEDIADRAMATICA.COM] THANK YOU VERY MUCH! comment made anonymously at 21:41, 12 Dec 2004 by 68.229.0.218
- That's your privilege, but I wonder why you think people here would be interested. Oh, I notice that an article for the utterly unnoteworthy "Encyclopedia Dramatica" has just been created. (I've already voted to delete that page too.) -- Hoary 04:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete and ban Janeth + socks for VFD flooding. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't flood this page, nor did I encourage anyone to do so. -Jameth 01:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete Paul August 22:51, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Who knew this would be the one thing that would lead to Encyclopedia Dramatica's formation? BruhmiusMomentum 3:05, Oct 10, 2021 (UTC)