Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trank

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 KEEP. Rje 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trank

Is this notable enough to be on Wikipedia? I think it can be interesting for people involved in this art scene themselves - so I wouldn't want to remove the article from the face of the internet - but I doubt it is interesting for Wikipedia users, so maybe there is a better place than Wikipedia for it? Ignavus 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now there's already an edit conflict with the first vote, but there are more similar articles I was going to add (more detailed than the first, but same topic and level of interest, I believe..) --Ignavus 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[vote below applies to Trunk only --Ignavus 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Delete, considering it's been around for 18 months and doesn't contain much of interest outside a blurb to justify following the link. SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to minor artscene groups. Practically asserts un-notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep once again I must remind folks the standard for keeping is VERIFIABILTY, not NOTABILITY. Users who've been here a whopping 11 edits (That would be you Ignavus) should learn the policies to wikipedia before putting stuff up for deletion. This is yet another example of a new user with complete ignorance of policy listing something he's never heard of for deletion. "I've never heard of it, so it should be deleted" is not the way wikipedia works. ALKIVAR™ 15:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. As WP:NN explains, non-notablity, while not a core policy like verifiability (WP:V), it is the basis for a number of guidelines for article inclusion which represent consensus opinions on Wikipedia (such as WP:BIO), and can be arguably associated with official policy WP:NOT. WP:NN also explains that notablity is a controversial issue, but is frequently used as arguments for afd. Ignavus is perfectly justified to nominated these articles for deletion. While every Wikipedia user should take time to read up on policies and guidelines, its totally unnecessary and unjustified for ALIKIVAR to scold a new user like that - and on the basis of ALIKIVAR's own opinionated reading of Wikipedia guidelines as well. I would suggest that ALKIVAR read WP:BITE. Bwithh 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alkivar. And since the "vote below applies to Trunk only," why are we talking about Trank? If you want an article to be deleted, you might want to proofread your request (yes, I'm aware that typos happen). I'd also like to point out, as others are so fond of saying, AfD is not a vote. Also, if you'd like to nominate the other articles you've listed, you should do so. As of now, the AfD template for them links to this AfD; they're separate articles, they deserve separate discussions (which will likely mirror this and every other AfD discussion). There's probably a policy on mass nominations, but I'm pretty sure this isn't how it works (please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong). --Myles Long 00:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Dhartung. If I'm reading this correctly, this is a small spinoff group that eventually returned to the fold of it's parent group. There are no claims of notability. MLA 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Alkivar. Orangehead 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - I believed it to be a bad joke by somebody. FYI, there was a time before the internet and before Windows 95 and up. People used Modems not to call an ISP to connect to a NET, but somebody elses Computer that was in most cases a private computer up for 24 hours on a designated telefon line just for the computer. That person had a software running called BBS Software that accepted incoming phone calls and provided features like Messaging (just like Email) and Upload and Download of files. Those "things" were called BBS which stands for Bulletin Board System and the PC Versions usually operated under MS DOS which was Text Based and fairly uggly. Thanks to ANSI and ANSI art and ASCII art got BBS's a much better look and touch of individuality. The Guys that did those weird type of Art (in the opinion of some folks of the after-MS DOS -> Windoof Generation) usually formed Art Groups (like the Guys that did Demos (Demo scene) and the ones that removed copy protections from games and applications (Warez scene) later the guys that ripped MP3's and Movies, something everybody should be familar with, because they are still around. Btw. ASCII and ANSI Art is also still around. There are a lot of folks out there that have vivid memories about ANSI and ASCII art, but might not remember the groups and artists that made them, but there are also still a lot of guys out there that remember very well and appreciate the fact that Information can be found about it and that it is not all forgotten. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: the CEO of deviantART also things that Groups like SAC and and ACiD and Remorse are very much notable, but he only runs the foremost artist community on the Web, nothing notable --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the vote is about "Trank" only, remove the "Articles for deletion" template from the other articles. They link to this vote. Regardless of that is my vote I already nade for all of the groups listed above and flagged as "Articles for deletion" --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Remorse (for Trank only), at least unless someone writes a longer article about it. I'm a bit confused by this "multi-voting", as the deletion links in those articles you listed link here. I can't really say anything about Trank or Mistigris, but I think it's totally absurd that you're suggesting the removal of the articles about SAC, Remorse and ACiD. These groups are very notable considering the history of digital art. DiamonDie 07:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not again... speedy keep. Of course this part of computer history is noteworthy. --Avatar-en 07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as per roy<sac> --Pseudo Intellectual 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC) ... and we will pretend for the time being that my association with Mistigris has nothing to do with this position.[reply]
Keep, per Alkivar. bbx 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are notable computer graphics organizations which pre-date the modern internet, worthwhile for coverage on Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 08:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Initially, when I created the minor artscene groups article, I included Trank ASCII. That was until I discovered someone had already created a Trank article. It is notable by being closely related to ascii scene legends Remorse ASCII. I could live with the Trank article being merged into the Remorse article, but honestly, adding the Afd for ACiD, Mistigris, Remorse, SAC, is just ignorant, and this opinion doesn't stem from the fact that I regularly edit these articles. --Sodium N4 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ASCII Art and all of it's groups deserve a rightful place in history as any other. To remove it would violate the purpose of even having Wikipedia. Bad move by whomever nominated this. --Conexion 17:38, 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.