Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Clampus Vitus
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 KEEP. Postdlf 00:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy as nonsense, but it does exist; hence I listed it here. No vote. Xezbeth 07:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Cleanup. It seems to exist and to be notable, but much of the history sections smells like a hoax. Martg76 08:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and revert/clean-up. Jeez, a little quick with the VfD. Take a look at the page history. It was a perfectly servicable page before the massive edits on the 17th and 18th of April. Note that the ECV's most famous activity is to pull pranks on historians. (See Drake's Plate of Brass.) No surprise they have found their Wikipedia page and had a good time. I am going to revert the page. This will have the side effect of wiping out the VfD. If you think it should be re-applied, go for it. Thanks --Chris vLS 15:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've reverted even further back, to a more likely version. If somebody disagrees, go ahead and revert my reversion. As the author of the original version, I vote Keep. RickK 19:13, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Please see talk page for reversion/copyvio discussion between ecvjackass and RickK. Chris vLS 04:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but clean it up, and keep an eye on it.Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Delete. I think that there's very little chance that this is going to be manageable, and the organisation may exist but (as the current, somewhat obsessive, editor has admitted) it's largely known for pranks and hoaxes. This looks very much like one of them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete and concur with Mel Etitis. It seems like we have here a user who is determined to rule over this article as his personal fiefdom, and has no regard for the way things are usually done around here. It is next to impossible to get anything of value out of the article as it stands, and when I read it I have no idea whether I'm looking at fact or fiction. I don't see it becoming worthy of being called truly encyclopedic or useful to the reader. We are better off without it. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Delete, because it's just... just... weird... and probably not very historical, and so obscure that very few of us can verify alterations to it. For some odd reason this smells to me like it's copyvio'd, but I'll have to check... Master Thief Garrett 03:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, I have a hard time gauging the reasons for deleting this article. We have an article on much less distinguished jokes. -- Cimon
I have no idea why you people are trying to delete this article. E Clampus Vitus is a well-known historical society in the California area. I know that the User has given us a bad article here, but it needs cleaning up, not deleting. What makes it weird? OK, I've reverted Ecvjackass's changes again. Please review the current version as of this date and time, and discuss the article based on that. This is definitely a notable organization. RickK 05:55, Apr 24, 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.