Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUEshi (7th nomination)

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 per consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUEshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Before we get this thing started, let me iterate that I am a member of both LUE and LUElinks, the central locations of the meme. Now, I clearly realize there have been previous decisions to keep this article. However, those decisions almost entirely ignored the rule and guideline violations, most of which it cannot live up to. This nomination is not of bad faith.

The article violates the following policies and guidelines:

• WP:NOR

I quote: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." - now, there are no reliable sources for this article and I don't believe there are any in existence. Due to the fact its main presence is on a private board, it's very unlikely for a source to publish any information on it. The "GameFAQs archive" is barely reliable, I don't believe it is. It a list of topics submitted by users, which means anything could easily have been modified.

• WP:V

The only thing that can possibly be verified is its origin (the source isn't very reliable either) and its existence. This isn't fact, but it is shown with the article's great lack of references.

• WP:WEB

Quote: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The article does not have any references showing this, and based on my research, I cannot find any.

I assure you there are a few more guidelines the article violates, but I believe this is enough to convince deletion. I have gathered a list of things that the ASCII art claims notability for, and rebuttals:

• Signed by Shigeru Miyamoto

This was simply because a person asked him to - Miyamoto would likely sign my arm if I asked him to, that doesn't make my hand notable for an article.

• Popular on the GameFAQs message boards

Unfortunately, for the purposes of WP:NOR, it's not, since it seems only to be popular on "Life, Universe and Everything", a private message board on GameFAQs - its popularity therefore cannot be confirmed. I invite you to give a reliable source that asserts its popularity.

• Interesting/I like it/Why not?

These are not reasons to keep an article. Observe the policies and guidelines to give a valid argument.

• [this meme] was kept on Wikipedia! Why can't this stay?

That's a different situation. The meme has most likely been more popular, or is able to be researched without violating WP:NOR. Regardless, if you believe that article should go, you're free to nominate it.

• The previous consensuses were to keep

The previous consensuses were also rather ill-founded. I have taken the liberty to give the violations and provide rebuttals to arguments. These rules weren't even argued against in the previous nominations, leading to a simple battle of votes, not consensus.

I remind everyone not to blindly vote. The result is decided with consensus, not vote amount, so don't waste your time if you have no argument. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes and discussion

• Delete - I am the nominator. Other options are to merge/redirect to GameFAQs, ASCII art or create a new Non-proportional ASCII art page. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to GameFAQs. Honestly, I'd been considering nominating this again myself for a while. Simply put, this is yet another example of unverifiable internet stuff that's been kept around due to a lot of WP:ILIKEIT, meatpuppetry, and other such nonsense. The only sources here are archived GameFAQs message board posts, which are far from reliable sources. Any claims to notability need to be backed up with verifiable information from reliable sources, and there really isn't any in this case.
  Meanwhile, note that the second-to-last AfD ended with a suggestion for a merge to GameFAQs message boards, which never materialized. That article has since been merged into the main GameFAQs article itself, which is a sign that all of the GameFAQs-related stuff should be confined to a single article.
  Finally, the last AfD was speedy kept as a bad-faith nom, "citing the GNAA clause". Of course, the GNAA article itself has now been deleted due to WP:V concerns, so it's now safe to say that there isn't really any kind of policy exemption given to repeatedly-nominated articles. WarpstarRider 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Aggressively redirect GameFAQs cruft. A Grue will eat anyone who uses this to claim no consensus to delete. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to a later redirect. Yup, funny, good ASCII art, but not encyclopaedic due to lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, zero secondary sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Ridiculously weak keep, there's a picture of it, making it verifiable. So this would be a good time to Ignore all rules. The only problem would be if it's important encyclopedic or not. It's not, really... -Ryanbomber 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's verifiable? That there happens to be a picture that looks like mario riding luigi? That in itself doesn't constitute an article, and the rest is unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'll knock up a terrible ASCII picture of a guy with a sword and call it LUElink. It's verifiable now! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, fine, point made. I know it exists but there's no proof and I doubt there's much out there. Sheesh. -Ryanbomber 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR is for preventing WP:CREEP, it's not really used for deciding whether an article goes or not. Hbdragon88 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone finds good sources. Recury 14:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I eventually plan to create a fork of ASCII art for non fixed-width art, so this content probably will end up there in some form or another. I have no doubt that this will be deleted - it really isn't notable. --- RockMFR 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Salt; Uh...no. Just, no. --Mhking 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Roses are red/violets are blue/in Soviet Wikipedia/bad article delete you. FirefoxMan 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't know how this keeps surviving. No sources and seems very unnotable.++aviper2k7++ 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This alleged meme is found primarily on a single message board which is now closed to new members. It does not seem to have received much attention among the general Internet public. As a remote second choice, redirect to GameFAQs with no further merge needed. --Metropolitan90 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, at best Merge but needs trimming. *sigh* an ASCII pic. You'd need good reasons on why we need an article on an ASCII picture in the first place. There's claims of fame but these aren't really all that convincing. Merge material if kept, and unlikely to change to anything else. And let's hope we don't need "(18th nomination)" this time =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per nom, WarpstarRider, WP:V, WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an article about a piece of ASCII art whose sole assertion of notability is that it "became popular all over the GameFAQs message boards." Am I missing something? This survived multiple previous AfDs? Anyway, the nom spells out reasons in vastly more detail than I could. Gnfnrf 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anomo 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt as it was in 2005 (and should have stayed). Danny Lilithborne 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try to keep this. --- RockMFR 00:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of comfort is that? You could've at least given reasons to keep. I don't think the LUE brigade is going to hunt you down and kill you, nor will your subconscious explode if you are against having a LUEshi article on Wikipedia. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid my subconscious would explode :( --- RockMFR 04:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I hinted at article on a recent DRV, finally someones done something about it. Delete as per above. This article is a crock (of shit). - hahnchen 02:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:RS. (Has anyone looked for sources?) --Quirex 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme Keep - this is internet notability at its finest. --61.114.193.19 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a free pass on sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. LUEshi wins teh internet Onewordpostguy 05:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the above, I vote to keep... you the hell out of Wikipedia. Damn LUEser. User's edits seem solely to be semi-vandalism. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment'. TEG, do you have a personal feud against LUE and its descendants? This article is being nominated for deletion the seventh ****ing time - most of previous ones were your work! What if someone gets a forum invasion with ton of LUEshis and wants to look up WTF the LUEshi is? Your claim about it being non-verifiable is false, since any GameFAQs staff member could do it, should you ask. As for notability, ANY Internet fad could be rendered as such, since one always could find a million people who doesn't know about it. xyzman 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • According to the verifiability policy: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Reliable sources" refers to actual published sources; "GameFAQs staff members" do not qualify.
    "Someone might want to look this up" is also not a valid reason for having an article here; you could insert just about anything into that hypothetical. And anyway, if one were to look up "LUEshi" in such a situation, they'd be redirected to the GameFAQs article. Then they could scroll down to the "Message boards" section, where LUEshi is mentioned under the "Life, the Universe, and Everything" heading.
    And I don't see any previous AfDs started by the nominator of this one. What are you talking about? WarpstarRider 10:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a personal feud against "LUE and its descendants", in fact I enjoy going there. None of the previous AfDs were my work - where are you getting this from!? If someone gets a forum invasion with a ton of ASCII-art renditions of my arm, does that mean we need an article on it? No, not really. It's a terrible analogy, I know, but it works. A GameFAQs staff member verifying it is called "original research" and is against the primary policies of Wikipedia. I'd advise you to read these, they're the basis for the deletion. Sure, a "million people" don't know about anything, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia needs sources and verifiability, and articles that cannot achieve this do not belong. I have nothing against LUEshi, in fact it's pretty funny sometimes. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I really don't understand why members of LUE can't differentiate between the two. --TheEmulatorGuy 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is the 7th nomination to delete this article. Give it up. - The Norse 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but the article breaks rules, and all it needs is a lengthy nomination so it doesn't get sabotaged by blind voters. Came from this topic, didn't you?--TheEmulatorGuy 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. TEG, unless you can somehow prove that people are being lured here to serve as blind voters, please don't throw around the accusation. You cherry-picked WP:WEB, which gives three criteria, and only one of them needs to be met. "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Given that this is simply a meme, "distributed" could reasonably be interpreted to mean that an explanation, as well as the ASCII itself, are present on the site. A quick google search shows Urbandictionary, encyclopediadramatica, and YTMND all on the first page, with YTMND having 43 hits for "LUEshi" and the other two having articles.

Additionally, LUEshi is being used as a mascot, not just as the ASCII. The Urban Dead wiki has an article about a group called "LUEshi's Undead" (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Lueshi's_Undead&printable=yes). CafePress offers a LUEshi shirt (www.cafepress.com/buy/andrea/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.11085364/pNo_11085364/id_4397428/opt_/fpt_/c_360/). LUEshi is (admittedly slowly) spreading across the internet due to the actions of LUEsers, has reached a variety of sites, has links to archived topics off GameFAQs (including his creation); what more is really needed? Just because you don't like the GameFAQs archive doesn't mean it isn't a valid source, with fictional entries removed when they are noticed, which is essentially the same system of peer review that Wikipedia itself uses.Alternator 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You've voted a strong keep and yet you've simply ignored the policy violations. As well as that, every single site you've listed is user-created. Urbandictionary, ed, YTMND, Urban Dead, Cafe Press. They're all user-edited sites. None of them are reliable sources, and all articles need reliable sources. There simply aren't any, and you're foolish to ignore that. Really, I'm trying extremely hard to control my anger. You're throwing false accusations and ignoring points all over the place. "What more is really needed"? A RELIABLE SOURCE. "LUEshi is spreading accross the internet"? You'll need a source for that. "you don't like the GameFAQs archive"? Actually, I like it. The problem is that it is user-submitted material, meaning it is not a reliable source. You cannot ignore this. Your argument is so lacking in logic it's not funny. Next time try making a relevant argument to the WP:WEB guideline, and the two policies that you plainly ignored. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to that, I think you misunderstood the thing you quoted in WP:WEB. If you'll read the footnote, it's clear that user-created material is not fulfilling the criteria. Because of this, it does not pass WP:WEB. May I ask, why do you want the LUEshi article? It breaks rules, and you know it. Don't deny it. There must be some reason for it, I'm assuming it has something to do with LUE's fame. I realize I'm swaying into bad conduct here, but when only LUE members are keeping, it simply makes me curious as to why they want the article. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, civility would be appreciated. Stop badgering, harassing, accusing, and/or badmouthing people who express different opinions. Further, you're ignoring the very important differences between the rules for articles (which are strict) and talk pages (which are meant to be discussions), complaining when people express their personal viewpoint. I'm not going to reply to your accusations, nor to any of your complaints save one, because quite frankly you've demonstrated a complete inability to maintain a civil discourse. I'd like to note, however, that Wikipedia is technically a "user submitted site"; WP:WEB discounts sites with no review process whatsoever, such as Newgrounds; while this would discount YTMND (which was more about Notability, which has been brought up in prior VfD), it would not remove the other Wiki sites that I included. I'm maintaining my Strong Keep, and noting that I feel this is a Bad Faith Nom.Alternator 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistakes in following discussion rules are not a reason for you to ignore the article rules. You have still yet to provide any argument whatsoever that disprove any of the policies I have given. May you answer my question? May you back up your vote? I think you know exactly why I'm being uncivil, it's because your arguments are false, ignore points, and have no basis. I hope you realize those sites are not reliable sources under any terms. Please, just read the rules. It is not a bad faith nom AT ALL! HOW COULD YOU EVEN THINK THAT? I provided THREE CLEAR VIOLATIONS, and a rebuttal to any points brought up. That's the most anyone can expect from a nomination. You disgust me. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikis are far from reliable sources. That includes WP itself; that's why third-party published sources for verification are insisted upon here. Suggesting that pages from other wikis with even lower standards of inclusion could be taken as sources is just silly. (And of course, ED isn't even allowed to be linked to on WP any more, so that's even more unusable.) WarpstarRider 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternator, look at the sixth AFD. It was ****ing flooded with anonymous users who were all voting keep. I know that the both the third and the sixth nominations at least have had a LUElinks topic on the AFD, which naturally led to the use of SPAs, anonymous users, and some dead accoutns piling on the keep votes. This article has had a history of massive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, so this accusation is just a precaution against this happening again. Hbdragon88 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of this, and if this is his reason, he should have pointed out the prior issues rather than blasting away without substantiating his complaints. Some editors might not be aware of the prior issues, and to simply accuse out of the blue is inappropriate.Alternator 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Longcat AFD. Hbdragon88 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not even assert meeting any of the criteria of WP:WEB, before we even get to the issues about reliable sources and verifiability. GRBerry 03:00, 13 December 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.