Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elvis 1950 (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 23 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]
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 (talkcontribs)
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]