Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RCP (Red Car Posse)

--Memphisjack 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)===The RCP (Red Car Posse)===

Delete as a contested PROD. Absolute WP:BALLS, violates WP:V, zero WP:RS indicating any sort of notability, fails WP:ORG, suspected WP:VANITY, possibly WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's totally B.S., it's racist, it's unverifiable, the listed assertions of notability are clearly fabricated. Can we speedy it as an attack page on either the friend at the end or African-Americans in general? Probably not, but man, I have never wanted to delete an article as much as I do this one. Dina 19:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• This article is no more than offensive than any other article on this website concerning the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, racism, or anything else. The purpose is to inform and if one truly desires to delete this article then one may as well delete anything else that pertains to the aformentioned. Let it also be pointed out that nowhere is racism upheld, justified, or encouraged. Rather, one should read the article in full before making irrational judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso2005 (talk • contribs)

Comment I did read the article in full. If its intent is to parody white supremacy and racism, then I suggest that it does that rather poorly. The article on the Ku Klux Klan does not include unverifiable "joke" fantasies about attending the Apollo theater and shouting "Wow! Look at all you monkey people!", or anything similar. The article on Nazism does not describe circumstances like a believer saying "would be nice to get rid of those disgusting chinks and hashbrown bastards permanently" as "in which he vocalized these exact thoughts into an albeit witty social commentary" (um, sic). Anyway, the fact that it's racist is hardly the only criteria for deletion on the table here. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes. Dina 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ok, the fact remains that because there is an absence of these specific citations on Wikipedia, does not exlude their existence elsewhere. And yet again, how is this racist when there is nothing advocating racism? Simply because the majority of people are not familiar with this organization does not point immediately to this being 100% false. There are countless underground organizations in existence and if Wikipedia claims to be a haven of information, surely it cannot delete an article that some people find offensive despite its accuracy. If there truly are doubts about this organization, I implore everyone to get in contact with, for starters, the various connections this group has with people of national presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso2005 (talk • contribs)

Comment Since the history shows that you are User:Zoso2005 the creator of this article, then please provide appropriate 3rd party citations. Obviously you know a great deal about the group, so you should be able to source your claims. Suggesting that other users "contact" (for instance)Mary-Kate Olsen to verify that "Thompson was seen trying to cop a feel on [her]" is unreasonable. The fact that people are unfamiliar with the organization is not the point -- the fact that no verifiable sources for the claims about the organization have been provided is. Also, please sign your comments by using four tildes. Dina 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, speedily if possible, as a hoax. I doubt that the sources claimed in the article actually discuss the subject. Note that several of the sources claimed are weekly or biweekly publications, yet are identified only by month. --Metropolitan90 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've personally heard of this group before and based on what I've seen on Youtube they're the real deal. Sure, some of the information on here seems a little "out there" but the sources are still cited with month and year, regardless of them being weekly or biweekly publications. Is it not also the intentions of Wikipedia for all users to seek out more information themselves? Also, how is it unreasonable to contact people like Mary-Kate Olsen? They're not unapproachable. --Elvis 1950 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Congratulations on your first edit. To answer your question, Wikipedia's intention is not for all users to seek out more information about themselves... it's to be an encyclopedia. And the "citations" are pretty bogus. WP:V is a policy that must be satisfied. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with fire per nominator. Might I remind our new friend(s) that the burden of verifiability lies upon them? Choess 23:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Who the fuck cares? Seriously, if there are citations that seem feasible, let it be. I doubt anyone is going to have a hernia if they come across something like this group's article. But I suppose no one else has anything better to do than amount to some lousy website's bitches. Way to go, everyone, way to go!--Lindy3930 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Note:Also vandalized my userpage here Dina 15:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sources I checked my library of Teen People magazines from the last decade and to my surprise I found that the citations are legitimate! Unfortunately I can't check any others, but I think we should give this person the benefit of the doubt. I also believe that there may be a mention of the RCP in one of the Futurama DVD commentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin999999999 (talk • contribs) *Also made this edit reverted as vandalism Dina 15:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, complete bollocks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete complete and utter bollocks. --Charlesknight 12:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Save complete and utter truth! Actually, I just hate it when people say "bullocks". Therefore, keep the article since these strange folk dislike it. In fact, why not just have a huge vote on whether we should keep it or not. Also, as mentioned by people above, who really cares? I sincerely doubt anybody in our lifetime is going to do intense research on a group like this. Who does it harm, besides the eccentric Wikipedia blowers here?--Tier1 14:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• WOW and holy hell! You people are way too into this site! Good God! Oh no! I think I see another article on here that has questionable material! Better run off and tell the proper authorities because I am a goody-goody! Yay for me and screw everyone else! Anyone who actually uses Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is a tool and has absolutely no claims to make on anything that holds sway. Good day to you all!--Flea1999 14:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC) This was User:Flea1999's first edit. --Metropolitan90 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Note: His second two were to vandalize Angus McLellan and Charlesknight diff diff Dina 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• My my Things here are definitely heating up. I suppose the one good thing that came from the creation of this article is that it got all of us talking. Just for the record, I think it's funny when people "vandalize" a Wikipedia page. Call me crazy. And, to shake things up even further, I speak for all of us here when I say this group deserves to remain documented in an article here.--Memphisjack 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)