Talk:Fifteen views of Asscrack

From 1d4chan

This entire article[edit]

Not sure if heresy.

Tactical Mehren (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Not heresy, just a shitty article. I recommend speedy deletion.--Newerfag (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This article is ass. -The Failord (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was created because this has been discussed heavily on /tg/. If that's not reason enough, maybe we should revisit what this wiki is even for. If the quality of the page is bad, well, I'm doing my best here. Please feel free to improve it, especially if you've been in the threads a lot. Cruxador (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • At beat, it's only barely /tg/-related. It can't really be called a meme, and since it originated on Reddit it must be terrible by definition.--Newerfag (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that assistantwikifag just dropped by and protected this article instead of subjecting it to deletionatus, I guess that means we're going to have to somehow make this a /tg/-grade article....Emperor be with us. Tactical Mehren (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel I may as well weigh in on this considering I was one of the warring editors, I am fully well convinced that unless something unexpected happens in the next few days this will go the same way as the time Tom Preston got a water thrown at him: The first few threads everyone went 'Holy shit, ha ha ha, I can't believe somebody actually did that,' and if you asked the same people a month later they would say something around the lines of it being an embarrassment. Following that I fail to see how this could be relevant to anything and at best this will be something that happened in 2014 if remembered at all.-- 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe in "speedy deletion" except for spam. The (temporary) protection was to cut off the distraction of removing and replacing the deletion tag. In retrospect, I suppose I could have blocked the two warring editors for an hour to give them time to cool off, leaving the page itself available for other anons to edit, but since the protection's going to lapse tomorrow anyway, I'm not going to tinker further with things. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In other words, it's no more shitty than the other dozens of articles that have received a delete tag yet have not been deleted. Let it linger and rot in obscurity, then. Since it has no links outside the talk page, it should just die off from lack of attention.--Newerfag (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You say it's disconnected, but I see quite a few connections -- neckbeard etiquette, the fact that these pictures were taken at a Magic: The Gathering tournament, and quite possibly That Guy (whether the sad-faced neckbeard or the individuals who expose their asscracks are That Guy is up for debate, I suppose) all come immediately to mind. Just because an article isn't great isn't an argument against its existence.
Also, I don't see a problem in having articles that turn out to be flashes-in-the-pan -- grabbing every silly post is probably not what people expect of this wiki, but if somebody cares enough to make an article about something, it doesn't hurt the rest of the wiki (as Zecro said in his response to your suggestion of notability rules). --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really see why this article should be deleted, it's funny, and without it I never would have learned about what it was spoofing, if the wiki is having a huge space issue for some reason (I can't think of why) then let it go, but otherwise I can't see "it's pointless" being a valid reason for deletion, if it was you could kill at least half of the wiki, there's several pages I only found through the search bar and aren't linked anywhere else, it being funny or informative in any way should be enough to save it on this wiki. --Triacom 10:10, 07 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a funny thing that is relatable to /tg/, as it's at a Magic tournament. It also has abundant neckbeards. I say keep it, but perhaps rewrite or add to it a bit. --StargateNerd 18:20, 23 May 2014

  • The article is without use. Its subject matter is extremely topical, and the article itself has been untouched since the initial drama. What's more, this isn't relevant just because Wizards banned someone for it. Are we going to catalog blow-by-blow summaries of who is and isn't allowed to attend Magic tournaments now? --Asorel (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
See earlier up this same discussion page where the same argument was made and the same counter-points were made. It's relelvant because it's an event that happened based off of the Magic: The Gathering series, has neckbeards, and has a decent amount of humour. Inactivity isn't enough reason to delete an article. -- Triacom (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Inactivity is however indicative of apathy. I have reviewed the precious talk page entries, and you are failing to acknowledge the baser argument: Even if this did happen at an MtG event, there is no need to record petty tournament drama.--Asorel (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Then there's also no need to record anything about petty games that are played on a table. I'll come around to your way of thinking if you can answer this question, what is hurt by having this article on the wiki? Are you really worried somebody else in the future will make an article about wacky antics that people might get a good laugh out of? For the record, inactivity is NOT reason to delete a page, and neither is apathy. If people really were apathetic then you wouldn't have anyone trying to revert your changes, and in fact you wouldn't be making the deletions in the first place. -- Triacom (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary. One is directly related to traditional games. This isn't actively discussed on /tg/ (and by extension this wiki) for the same reason /tv/ doesn't discuss celebrity gossip magazines. Pages like these 'hurt the wiki' by making it a bloated mess, which is part of the reason it's been forsaken by /tg/ in more recent times.--Asorel (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Bloated? Oh no! The wiki is becoming to large! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! What you seem to be missing is that /tg/ and 1D4chan have a lot of drama in them, especially around certain events like these, in fact I could argue that they are what make the wiki what it is since you cannot find a single large page on this wiki that does not have drama, or that was not inspired by drama, not to mention you're confusing "forsaken" with "moved on." People don't care because it's old, as Dark Angel points out there's other articles that are older and no longer discussed, not to mention there are a lot of old tactics pages that are still on here because, as I have to keep repeating, inactivity is NOT enough reason to delete something. Lastly, why do you think this wiki also archives things like user made stories? Because it's more personal and that's one of the things I've always enjoyed about it, what you're asking us to do is say "Fuck the people who play these games" and make it a by-the-books wiki that only records facts, like a lesser version of Wikipedia. On that note, I think you are completely alone in that sentiment, you're simply missing what's on the wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
And you are building a straw man to knock down. I never advocated rewriting the wiki as dispassionate and encyclopedic. Nor have I advocated removal of old tactics pages or writefaggotry. Neither of which are qualitatively similar to this article. With these facts in mind, it appears to me that you have failed to make any sort of point whatsoever.--Asorel (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No point? I'm saying that articles like these are essentially what the wiki is, people who love tabletop games and wanted to make articles cataloging and poking fun at them as well as the people who make/play them. Trying to get rid of that is the same as trying to delete everything that makes the wiki what it is, not to mention my main point has always been that you have no ground to stand on for deleting the article, which you've never addressed. -- Triacom (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The same ground on which you stand demanding every article be preserved: an editor of the wiki, no more, no less.
So you didn't read anything I wrote, did not look at my contributions page, and did not pay attention to what I said on your talk page then. I'm not interested in preserving all of the articles, just what's relevant. In any case I'm glad Wikifag cleared the issue up now. -- Triacom (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Following the reasoning of deleting old/short-lived/no longer funny memes, would you delete things like Dark Angel Shoulder Pad since the event associated with it passed by earlier in the year?, and where does that end? Do you delete Fish of Fury because it pertains to out-of-edition tactics? I'll realise I've just gone on a bit of a tangent, but this ass-crack page does have it's relevance here, certainly moreso than Rebecca Black or Twilight did. Its merely a snapshot of an issue which is much more widespread, since you're going to find an abundance of asscrack whenever you gather neckbeards together, I've had the unfortunate and unsightly experience myself whenever I go to my local GW, or get enough people round a gaming table. This page plays to the stereotype of fat, smelly, greasy and inconsiderate gamers (in other words: That Guy), which while unfortunate, still holds relevance in my opinion --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The event described in this article was significant at the time, especially in the MtG community, was certainly discussed on /tg/, and has lasted in memory. The images still circulate and people copycat the guy. The documenting of an event which happened a couple of years ago and made stirrings in the community at the time should not be a contentious issue. --Wikifag (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a guy taking some pictures of asscracks was "a significant event at the time" and "Made stirrings in the community" proves that MtG community needs to be purged wholesale.

I honestly thought the funniest part was when he got banned from attending future tournaments. -- Triacom (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)