Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Mickey Suttle

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

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, and move to SuperShadow.—Silly Dan (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mickey Suttle (talk - history - links - logs)

Keep

  1. He's notable. We shouldn't omit stuff we don't like-LtNOWIS 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. We still get some occasional Suttle nonsense. It's good to keep him around to know the truth behind "the official website of George Lucas" (rolls eyes). -- SFH 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Expose the fraud! Havac 05:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree, although I don’t like him, we need that article in order to identify his nonsense and keep it out of the rest of wookieepedia. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Maybe having an article on this guy will actually inform some otherwise naive people about what a big fraud he is. That's very useful in my book. KEJ 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    Like him, I do not. But needed, the article is. Evir Daal 07:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Esjs 08:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep. Nothing to do with warning anybody or giving him attention, he's a notable figure in the online fan community. Our job isn't to make some point with our articles either way, it's to inform, and he's notable enough to do so. - Lord Hydronium 08:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Darth Culator (Talk) 12:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Ozzel 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Jasca Ducato
  12. Oh please. We might as well delete articles like George Lucas. Unit 8311 12:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    Not being worthy of notoriety doesn't mean he doesn't have any. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kuralyov 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep the article. It will help inform innocent people like me who were unaware that Supershadow is a fraud. After all, he is a prominent Star Wars figure, since he is the biggest deceiver in Star Wars history. Keelu Kenobi 01:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep at Mickey Suttle

  1. Keep at Mickey Suttle. Chack Jadson 02:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep at Mickey Suttle. Wildyoda 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sikon 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to SuperShadow

  1. Keep but move back to StuporShadow . . . err, I mean, SuperShadow. Mickey Suttle himself is barely notable, but his website - and it's effect on the uninformed - are both notorious and substantial. Either that, or split into two articles, one about the person, one about the site. jSarek 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. What jSarek said. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. jSarek's idea. Evir Daal 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep and move to SuperShadow as per jSarek. Pablo Hidalgo refers to the site in an issue of Star Wars Insider - that makes it fairly notable. --Azizlight 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep and move to Supershadow because of what Azizlight said. Zakor1138 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per jSarek and Azizlight. Atarumaster88 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. I think this article could be cleaned up. I know this article could be more clear and direct in its primary purpose (which is to quickly inform newbies that he's not to be trusted). But he's at least as notable as Bob Vitas. Sad but true. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Edit: Move! Per jsarek. We don't need an article about Suttle himself, for all the reasons listed by those who voted Delete. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. I need a name (Complain here) 17:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Din's Fire 997 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Split into Mickey Suttle and SuperShadow.com

Delete

  1. All this is doing is acknowledging the pathetic man. By having an article, we only incite his nonsense further. He should not be having any more impact on the the Star Wars community then any of us. Indeed. we do need someplace to direct the idiots who believe him but does he really need his own article? No. All we need is a simple page that states that he is a fraud and that anyone putting his crap here will be punished. Simple. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 00:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. He's only notable because he's got high ranking thingies on Google, and owns some domain names that he, for all intents and purposes, should not own. .... 07:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Why should he not own them? --School of Thrawn 101 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Because...surely those domain names could be put to better use. ridleyscott.com (hack though he may be), erm...those...other ones... .... 09:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I raise my eyebrow in your general direction, sir. --School of Thrawn 101 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "He's only notable because he's got high ranking thingies on Google . . ." Sounds to me like he passes the Google Test, then. jSarek 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Dare I say that he's more notable than the average Pokémon? --School of Thrawn 101 09:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • What I mean to say is, he's only known because naieve fans find their way to his site because it's a high ranking...thingie. I'm really not delivering this well. Late night. .... 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
        • All the more reason that another relatively high-ranking site, Wookieepedia, should exist to enlighten those that dig a little deeper. --School of Thrawn 101 11:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. He is not worthy of the article, of any notoriety at all. - JMAS 12:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. It is an article that should be deleted.--Windu223 13:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. We're only making him more meaningful by giving him a huge article. Simplify or delete is his only option, and that little geek should be wiped off the face of Wookieepedia. --Darthchristian (Hey!) 1:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The article doesn't really help anyone more than all the other "Mickey Suttle is a fraud" websites, and anything original that we do have is just how he contradicts canon. .... 07:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Except for the fact that people coming here to find out more about his stuff aren't going to learn anything unless we have an article on him where his stuff redirects. Where we have such an opportunity to correct disinformation as we do here, we should take it. jSarek 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This was already VfD'd earlier, at Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/SuperShadow. -LtNOWIS 03:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I split keep into three distinct proposals, for clarity. - Sikon 16:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)