Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/Archive 1

{archive}} {==Delete the article== Hey guys, can we delete this article? I think there's way too many internet celebrities in wikipedia and that is wrong.

Unless they are going to delete every article about every person made famous by the Internet, there is no reason to delete this one. Andy120290 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great let's do it! Besides angry videogame nerd is not even famous. He doesn't has enough merits to appear in wikipedia. Jamal Thompson 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk)

He's already enough of celebrity to be featured guest on the Opie and Anthony show. This is not a small accomplishment - given that the show is listened to by millions. Also take into account he's in the top 10 most viewed directors on YouTube. ---- DevinCook (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just leave it alone, it's survived for being a higher quality article then the earlier ones. --Mooshykris 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just leave the article alone.68.150.25.86 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable. I understand the enthusiasm of the fans, but reliable sources must be cited in order to have an article. Devil Master (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? A lot of other YouTube celebrities have articles. Are you going to get all of those deleted? Andy120290 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If this article was to be deleted, then other Internet shows and celebrities would also have to be removed (whom are equal in popularity): Chris Crocker, Ask a Ninja, Homestar Runner, etc.... However, we need to add some references. The YouTube stats should be. I can work on this later today. --DevinCook (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think the only reason why anyone's requested deleting the page is that they're jealous for not making the page first. And whenever someone's jealous of another's contribution, they do everything they can to remove the contribution. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete it, or I will have to delete it myself. No one knows angry videogame nerd, not even him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you talk to the heads of wikipedia instead of giving us the Mr. Know It All routine? As was mentioned earlier, he appeared on the Opie and Anthony show. Which isn't a minor accomplishment.

If you're going to be siting rules, then get the facts first. And, FYI, being a longtime Wikipedian doesn't always mean you're right about everything. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. --DevinCook (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Already deleted the page. It's not vandalism, I seriously think this entry doesn't deserves to be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My apology for getting angry earlier, but could you specify why it should be deleted? Is it just because you do not like the AVGN? I mean, I don't care that much about Chris Crocker, but that doesn't mean I would approve of deleting the page. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why to delete it? He's not like any simple game reviewer... The Angry Video Game nerd is now selling DvDs for gosh sake! This is enough of a reason to keep his article. --84.109.16.16 (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't hate the angry video game nerd nor internet celebrities. I just think internet celebrities shouldn't be in a serious encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point is noted. Please do not continue to vandalize the page.--DevinCook (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But your decision to delete the page still seems like a personal decision. Now if he was an obscure internet celebrity I'd understand your reasoning. But he's been on a show and is selling merchandise. Now have you read other comments on the matter, because from your response it seems like you haven't even considered what the other wikipedians are saying. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, please don't delete this.. Monty2 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to delete this you are an Ignorant Asshole. - Not an Asshole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.38.8 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

! This debate is more about the opinion of a user that tends to vandalize the pages he doesn't like or agree with than the article itself. I looked at the log. He's vandalized many articles - one with a racial slur. We should not take him seriously unless he continues to vandalize. --DevinCook (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I thought he was a control freak, but when I was leaving some discussion on his/her talk pages, my dialogue was altered to make me look like I was racist. Luckily, someone corrected his edits. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the user's motives. His attitude is quite contrary to the whole idea of Wikipedia! --DevinCook (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just ban his Ass and get on with your life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.89.179 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

They'll delete it, because admins have used WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the past, even though they're not allowed to, and other deliberately underhanded tactics, and it has succeeded. Every one of them will say that there have been "no new developments" since JULY OF 2006. Just a big circle jerk. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, im not a vandal. I just think that making an entry about every jackass there is in youtube, is quite contrary to the original concept of wikipedia. Entries like this one (about internet celebrities) are the reason why wikipedia has been losing credibility over the last years. Let's get serious and delete all useless wikipedia entries, to recover the credibility wikipedia once had. --JamalThompson (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a view points:

1. You vandalized articles - therefore you are a vandal. I saw the changes made to the Sonic the Hedgehog related article. Not all your changes are for the benefit of Wikipedia.

2. This page is not about a YouTube celeb. It's a show with an international following. This being said, remember that people like Chris Crocker, whom is a YouTube celeb, are notable enough to be part of Wikipedia.

3. Wikipedia's credibility is at its highest point. It is a medium where everyone first looks when trying to find articles and knowledge on basically any subject. The integrity of Wikipedia hinges on these articles being accurate, well-written and informative (rather than advertisements). In all these cases, this article succeeds.

The content of Wikipedia is for everyone. You will not agree with the inclusion of all articles - naturally this is the same for everyone. However, attempting to delete an article because you alone do not like it is the darker half of arrogance. - DevinCook (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be kept. It is well written and about a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EinsteinEnergy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Thompson: You missed the whole point, devin. Youtube or not, internet celebrities should not be allowed in a decent encyclopedia. I don't care who Chris Crocker is, but if he's another internet celebrity that means he should be deleted too.

About the "Wikipedia's credibility being at its highest point" sources? I can cite many sources from the media, professors, scientists, politicians and other intellectuals that disagree with your statements. Most of the sources tell that wikipedia has become a fan club of people that modify the entries to make them fit their views. Right now I'm trying to suggest this article into deletion, but most of you oppose because you're fans from angry video game nerd!

You have biased views on this matter, in a few words. --JamalThompson (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biggest problem is vandalism - users that blank pages, add erroneous or self-serving information, make racist changes (e.g. making a red and black anthropomorphic hedgehog into an "African American"), etc...

But there is a bigger picture here that you need to understand. What is a celebrity? It is obvious that you have distain for the Internet, but it is changing both television and movies. In decades to come, it is fair to say that all media (T.V., movies, etc...) will be part of the Internet. It is already true with digital cable. What then is celebrity? Do they require a corporate sponsor ... CBS, NBC, etc...? Of course, this show is sponsored by MTV and ScrewAttack. Is not that in the same category? The argument you are making is that only shows sponsored by major corporations deserve inclusion.

As far as citing goes. I will cite myself. - DevinCook (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you don't know what a celebrity is? A people that gets lots of attention. Usually an artist.

The so called "internet celebrities" are unknown in real life (besides their 15 minutes of fame) and they've never do anything worth mention. A song, a movie, a paint? nothing. There has been cases of internet celebrities (i.e. Rihana, artic monkeys) that became real celebrities. But this is still not the case, so my proposal is deletion.

And as I said, you're biased over this issue, you're not facing the facts because you're defeding an idol of yours, while I'm being very objective and reasonable. JamalThompson (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was using a rhetorical question. Is that not a way to make a point? :-) If you are missing that aspect, please reread what I said. Also, you stated that an Internet celebrity is "unknown in real life". Both James Rolfe and Chris Crocker have been interviewed on talk shows - radio and T.V.. They are known in real life. You completely invalidated your own point. Also, please use colons to indent your comments. - DevinCook (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If I was biased, Jamal, then I would have deleted the Chris Crocker page myself (I dislike him, btw). But the fact is, that he's been on many tv interviews and thus is valid, so I'm not letting my personal opinions on Chris influence my decision.

Besides, if wikipedians are biased for keeping up something because they like it (such as DevinCook), then you are biased for deleting something because you dislike (internet celebrities) it.

And as DevinCook said, James is sponsored by MTV and has been on Opie and Anthony. But we're wasting our time typing as Jamal doesn't seem to pay attention to our mention of MTV and Opie and Anthony. Now if James' only exposure was online, then your reason for deletion would be valid. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Thompson: Devin, a celebrity is supposed to be famous, hence the name "celebrity". Many people get an interview in one of those tv shows, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're famous or "known" in real life. The mainstream culture is unaware of these cult idols, because they're forgettable. 15-minutes as I said.

My point stands. JamalThompson (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, your request for deletion stems from personal dislike of internet celebrities, so you're just as biased for those who want the article to stay. Again, I'm not letting my dislike towards Chris Crocker getting in the way of his article. Personal dislike doesn't count as constructive reasons for deletion.

If you want to contribute so much, then find an article that you have some insight on and contribute to it. Don't delete an article just because you didn't come up with it first.

And considering that you haven't always followed the rules (such as the pages you've vandalized and rarely sign your messages), you're the last person who should be preaching to us. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You need reading lessons sir. Where have I hinted my dislike for the angry video game nerd? I don't care about him, all I care about is having a stronger wikipedia with more credibility and without useless entries such as this one. JamalThompson (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you hate the AVGN, but your request to delete articles on internet celebrities is for personal reasons, correct? Personal reasons do not justify deletion. Now if James and Chris didn't get any mentioning outside the internet, then I'd agree with your choice to delete them. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Thompson: So using your reasoning I could say that you want to KEEP this article for personal reasons, correct? No, as you can see that kind of logic doesn't works here.

Besides you did say I disliked the angry nerd and internet celebrities: ""your request for deletion stems from personal dislike of internet celebrities"". Not the case.

My point stands, once again. JamalThompson (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We want to keep it to provide information. Does deleting it serve any purpose? You say that you'd like to make contributions, so why not use your wikipedia time to contribute to the pages you believe should stay up? What do you accomplish by deleting this page?

And by dislike of internet celebrities, I meant that you don't like the idea of internet celebrities. Disliking internet celebs, doesn't mean disliking the people in particular. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're confusing yourself there sir. Anyway, I don't dislike the people nor what they represent. I just want a more serious wikipedia so it can recover it's lost credibility.

As you can see I'm not deleting the page anymore. Why? Because some people thought I was vandalizing the page, and I don't want to make the wrong impression. So now I'm here, arguing whether or not this entry deserves to be in wikipedia or not.

An my opinion is that it doesn't. So my suggestion is deletion. JamalThompson (talk) 1:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but why don't you spend time contributing to pages you think do belong? What do you accomplish by getting this article deleted? 71.115.192.199 (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's already done sir. What's left is to delete the pages that hurt wikipedia's credibility as a trustworthy encyclopedia. JamalThompson (talk) 1:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are many pages which are lacking in info. And then there are many pages which have decent info, but have poor grammer.

Is the AVGN article full of vandalism or uncited info? If so, how does it damage wikipedia crediblity? And if your intentions are so noble, then why did you alter my comments on your talkpage a few weeks ago to make me sound racist? 71.115.192.199 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already adressed the reasons why this entry affects wikipedia's credibility sir. This kind of entries shouldn't be in a serious encyclopedia. JamalThompson (talk) 1:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk)

And yet, tampering with talkpage info makes you look more serious correct? Not to mention you forget to sign your comments constantly. Hard to rely on someone who doesn't sign often. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, deleting this entry will make wikipedia a more serious and credible encyclopedia. JamalThompson (talk) 1:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk)

Look, this is my personal thoughts. As the name of the article states, it is about an internet SHOW, not about the character himself. Internet shows can be just as credible as TV shows. This was never meant to be about the celebrity himself, but the show in which James Rolfe, an amateur filmmaker created.

If you don't like the article, then leave it alone. --Mooshykris (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your position is highly intolerant sir. According to wikipedia's rules, we can discuss if we think an article is worthy to be here or not.

P.S. Internet shows are not known in the mainstream society. Sorry. JamalThompson (talk) 1:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If credibility is important to you, then why do you seldomly sign your comments? Why do you resort to changing someone's comment to make them sound racist? 71.115.192.199 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to sign my opinions, but I doubt THAT affects wikipedia's credibility, since most people read the content page. Your comments are irrelevant, let's better stay on topic sir.JamalThompson (talk) 1:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but I believe it has been voted as a keep. If you read, only you so far have said to delete this article.

As for where I stand, I like the Angry Video Game Nerd. However, I did not create this article, and am not contributing to it biased. I feel my duty as a Wikipedian is to make sure articles stay detailed and organized, not to decide what is worthy of a page here. --Mooshykris (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The first comment wasn't mine. The people that disagree with the deletion of this entry are fans of angry video game nerd. Which means your views are biased.

My point stands. JamalThompson (talk) 1:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not true, as I support all Wikipedia articles, no matter what the subject is. I would not have even considered creating an article here, but if there is one, I plan to keep it in order.

As for you're problem signing your comments, that might have to do with you not being registered. --Mooshykris (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Your comments are irrelevant, let's better stay on topic sir." We're talking about reliability here aren't we? If so, altering someones comment on a talkpage diminishes crediblity. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd is no longer just some fleeting internet series. The reviews are now being sold on DVDs. The AVGN was indeed an insignificant "YouTube Celebrity" in the past, but it has grown beyond that and is now an established (albeit small) portion of human culture, just as any number of little known books and films are. The fact that it began on the internet does not deny it this status in any way. Your claim that an article about it damages the credibility of wikipedia is baseless. Of course, you've made it very clear that your confirmation bias is well beyond the need of proof, so I suppose we'll just have to be happy with the fact that democracy has already beaten you, here.--69.65.238.218 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Jason D.

Exactly my point. --Mooshykris (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be archived in a couple days. Arguments in favor of removal have been discredited - even by those advocated removal. I'm sure there will be some additional back-and-forths in the next couple days. When it dies down, I will archive. Cheers. - DevinCook (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Thompson:

1)""We're talking about reliability here aren't we?"" Wikipedia's credibility. I had told you thousand times, if you have dyslexia you can tell us.

2) Devin, I know this discussion has already took place. But perhaps those in favor of removal were in disfavorable circumstances because wikipedia is becoming more and more like a fanboy chatroom.

Therefore, my point STILL stands. And im going to suggest this article, once again, for deletion.JamalThompson (talk) 1:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's credibility. I had told you thousand times, if you have dyslexia you can tell us." Then if credibility is so important to you, then why do you alter comments on your talkpage? The only reason you've dodged my question is because you'd have to admit that you aren't the holy crusader of Wikipedia you pass yourself off as. 71.115.192.199 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We have spent way too much time trying explain basic logic to a known vandal. This is a job reminiscent of Sisyphus! :) Let's just leave the subject alone. I'll archive this entire section tonight. - DevinCook (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jamal Thompson: You two are assuming a close-minded position because you feel that your idol is being treatened. When actually, what I try to do is just the right thing. Im not a vandal, the admin who I've been talking to doesn't think I am, that's why he allowed me to edit pages once again in the first place.

Anyway, as far as im concerned. I'm just going to suggest deletion for this entry and use your fanboyism as evidence of the point I'm trying to make. Cheers. JamalThompson (talk) 1:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And as far as I'm concerned, you are going to far with a long ended decision. You say your point stands. Well my point stands that this article was voted as a keep. You have no relevant proof that we are doing this articles out of fanboyism.

There is no more reason to get rid of this article then to get rid of an article about Law and Order, House, or any other popular shows. This article is about a Web Based Show. There has been a high demand for this article, and as long as it meets Wikipedia's article quality standards, there is no reason to delete it.

For the last time, if you don't agree with this article, then please leave. Your opinion has been voted out by majority. Give it up! --Mooshykris (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)