Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O&A Army

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. See my last comment. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O&A Army[edit]

  • DELETE There is no encyclopedic value and regards a group whose size and impact are culturally insignificant. It reads more as advertising for The Opie & Anthony show and contains information which is difficult to verify thereby making it an unreliable resource. Wikipedia's value is that its contrinutors and editors value accuracy and truthfulness highly. With no way to verify the claims made by this entry's author, and through the insignificance of the subject, it serves as a blight on Wikipedia's reputation.

Strong Delete- This page is nothing more then a branging Trophy for these Pests. Their actions are an utter disgrace to be displayed on Wikipedia. Many of the problems they have caused are illegal also. This content has no encyclopedic value and should be removed by all means necessary. JPJ 05:21, 11 September 2006

Strong Keep-Thus far the article has survived, even though there is no such army particularly in a smaller form on the main Opie and Anthony page. The "Pests" as they are, are a major part of the show and have grown to such a degree that they have recieved attention in national publications and even warranted a mentioning on O&A's David Letterman Appearance. The evidence is overwhelming to keep this section. Payneos 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before... Wikipedia is not the place for an article like this. This article exists just to promote a group of people. It has NO encyclopedic value, and I say this as an Opie & Anthony fan. DELETE--XMBRIAN 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE XMBRIAN is the original nominator of this afd. I'm not moving their nominating statement to the top of the list as it breaks up the um... dialogue flow here. Regular process puts the nomination statement at the top of the afd discussion, but it looks like User:Payneos beat the nominator to be first at the afd page here. Bwithh 05:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aah, but it does. This article is longer than many other articles and includes a lot of information on the particular topic of "The Pests." One may take an interest to looking them up, based on the fact that they may have read aboot them in a publication, heard aboot them on Opie and Anthony, or may have seen Pest activities on the streets. It has encyclopedic value, and many articles tend to promote things. McDonalds is noteworthy, but it promotes McDonalds. Payneos 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No.. it's not. It has nothing to do with how long it is if it's all pure shit. I bet if I added a criticism section to this article you'd go all apeshit on me, right?--XMBRIAN 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I wouldn't, depending on how well it was written. If you went off on the Pests, calling them full of shit and all fuckheads, maybe I would because that's certainly not encyclopaedic. You're just too lazy or afraid to add one. So instead of whining, why not go and add that criticism article? I could even help, because I know some fans do take exception to Pest activities. Payneos 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not adding anything to a lame duck page.--XMBRIAN 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which proves what your aim is. Not to improve Wikipedia, but to tear down whatever you don't agree with. Your deletion notions are ridiculous. If you're not going to help, don't bother coming here. This isn't helping, it's destructive. Payneos 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kind of like what the pests do to other radio shows. Irony... huh?--XMBRIAN 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Agenda showing much, pookie? Payneos 04:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • OMG! LETS CALL A PAT BATTLE ON ME! RAMMMMMONE, FETCH ME A BIKINI TINNI!--XMBRIAN 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is a deletion page, not a place for "Pat Battle" Claims or a "Ramone" joke. You say the article is unencyclopaedic, but your demeanor is unbecoming of an editor to this encyclopedia. You don't seem to be taking it very seriously. Payneos 04:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • face the fact that i'm right.. no matter what my "agenda" as you call it may be. --XMBRIAN 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We'll let others come and decide that. But I have a strong feeling this article will survive, whether in present form or not, despite what you want. Payneos 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yeah.. let others decide. However, if this gets posted on Wackbag or FBA as a link for the pests to voice "their" opinions, then this article should just be deleted on the spot.--XMBRIAN 05:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I can't control that, however I will say I won't do that because when fansites get involved they tend to just vandalize the page for the hell of it (Making Ramone jokes, Ol' Gravy Leg references, the like.) So, we'll keep it relatively quiet, lest we want to revert vandalism every two minutes. Payneos 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The show's notable, the fan base not so much. Wildthing61476 05:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we're all clear, remember the articles of Friends of Opie and Anthony and Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony, all of which are offshoots of the orginal Opie and Anthony article and even the latter has already survived one attempt at deletion, which I might add was/is more POV and worse written than this article. Keep it in mind. Payneos 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gee... why is one of the links red? hmmmm...--XMBRIAN 05:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither of the links are red, I simply mispelled one, check again. Payneos 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • your bad.--XMBRIAN 05:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Article exists, however. Payneos 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft incarnate. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for fan groups Bwithh 05:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft incarnate indeed. Eusebeus 12:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Ghastly. Fancruft, no reliable sources. --kingboyk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. Mack. 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article. Seano1 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why waste bandwidth on a such an insignifigant group? 76.0.208.71
  • Delete, this is an insane amount of cruft for one radio show and the nature of the content is hopelessly un-encyclopedic. My Alt Account 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The pests are a fan base, yes, but they have become a part of pop-culture in the impact they have had on the fate of some entertainment sources. Links to support, including forbes, a pretty solid citation. http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/13/xm-sirius-marketing-cx_gl_0713autofacescan05.html?partner=yahootix "Cumia and the Pests have effectively pushed the O&A brand in the public's face. Now that' s viral marketing." FMQB http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874 Also from FMQB, First fan base to raise a billboard for a radio ad http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanthony/displayheadline.cfm/id/8213/div/opieanthony/headline/THE_OPIE_AND_ANTHONY__PESTS__GET_MENTIONED_IN_FMQB.htmlDugout Doug 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. At some point after this last comment the AFD must have been advertised off-wiki. Please remember that consensus is not determined by solicited "votes", unsigned comments, or new accounts. --kingboyk 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepWhether you like the pest or not, they are apart of a national radio show and have been mention in numerous publications. if you get rid of the PESTS then go to anything else that isn't "encyclopiedia worthy".
  • Strong Keep The O&A Army is a group of fans that are a part of the Opie & Anthony Show, and often times are guests of the show, in and out of the studio. They are an integral part of the show, and they're growing. The links above demonstrate same. They should be treated with the same respect as any guest of the show, if not more. For example, Richard Dreufuss was a guest of the show. Shall we delete his article as well? Likewise for any other guest who's appeared on the show, and has their own article. This deletion request is clearly motivated by personal reasons, as opposed to professional ones.
  • Strong Delete The pests only exist on the Opie and Anthony show and articles related to them should be in the wiki O&A article. No legitimate reason for them to have a seperate article except for them to try to get their names mentioned on yet another internet space. The fact that they are posting links to this discussion on their message boards so non-wiki users will come here to support them shows their desperation for attention.

^^^ couldn't agree more!--XMBRIAN 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So we're all clear, this article is not too far off from being a very similar one to the Trekkies or Browncoats articles. Would you delete that one as well? Consider that, along with the many credible cited sources involved in this article, before you consider deletion. Payneos 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY CRAP! READ WHAT IVE BEEN POSTING! NOMINATE IT YOURSELF!

NONE of the articles I have cited I have EVER had a problem with! However, they are all articles you SHOULD have a problem with because you are the one who is complaining aboot THIS article. But there are many articles that are called into question due to the precident you may set in THIS article.

I AM a Browncoat, and Trekkies SHOULD have their own article. But the way you're arguing why the Pests shouldn't have their own article, neither should Trekkies or Browncoats. Thus, I expose your agenda. Payneos 04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is my agenda? WHY DONT YOU COME OUT AND SAY IT?--XMBRIAN 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remove all traces of The Pests from Wikipedia, and readd the Spaz baloney back in. For what reason you have this particular agenda, I do not know, but it's none of my business why. However, I'm making it my business to stop it. YOur personal opinions have no place on Wikipedia. Payneos 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched the O&A article in months. if you had a fucking brain, you'd realize that I want to put this back into the O&A article.--XMBRIAN 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would pay more attention to earlier notes, the reason this article came into true existance when I found it and cleaned it up was because the O&A article was already over 80kb long, which is FAR longer than the recommended (or sometimes allowed) amount of content for the O&A Main Article. Hence, this is how this article came to be. It can go back in the main article, but will eventually once again outgrow the main article. Payneos 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you leave all this unneeded shit out.--XMBRIAN 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)--XMBRIAN 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much disagree with the whole of the article, which is why you proposed deletion, and not *suggested* merging it. You went three steps ahead, not even calling for moderation or suggesting an offical merging, but just right to deletion. Payneos 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?--XMBRIAN 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YA RLY. NO WAI! I know the internet too. Payneos 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO YA?--XMBRIAN 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)--XMBRIAN 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Stupid? Jimmy's my hero. "Is he?" Yeah. He is. Payneos 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Flash Virus is mine! --XMBRIAN 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep So since this article should be deleted, I guess all articles about fangroups and fanbases should be deleted as well, correct? That means The Grateful Dead's Dead Heads, Phish's Phish Heads, Firefly/Serenity's Browncoats, Star Trek's Trekkies and even American Idol's Taylor Hicks' Soul Patrol articles should all be deleted as well, right? Just because they're loosely affilitated fangroups, that doesn't mean they don't have some kind of cultural impact and it doesn't mean their articles should be deleted. It's already been revealed that XMBRIAN has a personal grudge against the O&A Army which is fueling his request for this article's deletion. His motives are personal and petty, he's not requesting it for the improvement of Wikipedia.

You do not know my true motives. Maybe I don't care for the pests, true. However, explain the other people who have voted delete? Do they hate the pests too? Wah wah! You sound like Howie.. the Fcc is out to get me! Wah wah! Brian is out to get me!--XMBRIAN 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to deflect attention from the fact that you've lost ground in this argument. Give us a valid reason that hasn't been addressed and debunked to prove that your motives aren't personal. We've already presented plenty of articles and coverage of the Pests' exploits to warrant the existence of this article. Heck, there are fangroups who have less coverage and attention paid to them that have their own Wiki.

Pests advertising and soliciting meatpuppets Wiki editors should consider Dugout Doug's solicitation of outsiders to this discussion in making their decision about this article.

http://oaexperience.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4501

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible.

The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

  • And what is wrong with asking fans to contribute to this discussion and to lobby against this article's deletion? People with "limited Wikipedia background" shouldn't be discriminated against since they can also bring a lot of valid points to the discussion. Now you're the one whose whining because the argument isn't going your way.

Learn it, know it, live it

And what if those people go on to have extensive Wikipedia backgrounds? Are they still meat puppets then? I actually do have a Wikipedia account and have edited several articles in the past including this one (I added the "O&A Army Vs. O&^A Pests" section), but forgot my password. And even if I recovered it, using my account now would give the impression that I was doing sock puppetry by posting anonymously at first and then under my Wikipedia account after.

You're capable of sock/meat puppetry as much as we are, all you need is an IP Spoofer or a few pals. How do we know you haven't been doing it?

And you don't think we see what you're trying to do? It seems that you're upset because more people seem to be opposed to your request for deletion than there are approval of it, so you're trying to get the Wikipedia people to become suspicious that there are meat/sock puppetry going on to discredit the opinions of people opposed to you who have been alerted to your request to delete this article on OA Experience. I, for one, have not been doing sock/meat puppetry, all Wikipedia has to do is check my own IP to see all my posts are coming from the same place. But alas, there's that darn IP Spoofer strategy, and the circle of suspicion goes around and around. Your attempt at breeding suspicion to get your way is so transparent. Accusing us of sock/meat puppetry doesn't change the fact that we countered your request for deletion with articles of the Pests' activities and other instances of loyal fanbases like the Pests getting their own Wiki, and whether or not this Wiki is deleted shouldn't be decided on sock/meat puppetry, but on the facts we've presented.

And furthermore, being someone with "extensive Wikipedia background" means nothing also. Just as it is capable of people having more than one account through an IP Spoofer, it is possible for someone to have more than one account with "extensive Wikipedia background" as well. Stop trying to discredit others' opinions because they haven't posted on Wikipedia as long as you. It's in the same vein as the false superiority people get when they have a huge post count on a message board and they see a newbie with a diminutive post count. High or low post counts mean nothing, extensive or limited Wikipedia background means nothing. As long as you make valid points, how much time you spend on a board or how many posts you have means nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.67 (talk • contribs)

  • Sock puppets and meat puppets are against official Wikipedia policy. That is the policy. Don't like it, go argue it on the Wikipedia policy pages. Dougout Doug is the one who publicly engaged in meat puppetry before checking the policy. Why do you have such a hard time believing that more than one person could disagree with you? I am not Xmbrian and know nothing about him. There is a whole message board of O&A fans that don't like the pests. Sending more pests here from FBA will only damage your case further with the Wikipedia editors. Good day sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.146.213 (talk • contribs)
  • delete POV article based on warring factions within Opie and Anthony supporters and detractors, list of publicity stunts, etc is tediously crufty. Whilst the show hosts are already deliberately making controversy to improve ratings and notoriety, they appear to be egging on warring factions in a media sideshow, turning the show into reality TV. This article could be likened to outlining all the different shots of every advertisement in any given product's advertising campaign, and is completely indiscriminate. The statement "the goal of the AOTM campaign was to promote the show during live news shots while making reporters look somewhat ridiculous. O&A encouraged their fans to intervene in live news shots outdoors, either by displaying an O&A poster or jumping up and down, shouting something to the effect of "Opie and Anthony! XM Satellite Radio!") in the main article would appear to suffice as a summary. Ohconfucius 08:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, all the nameless people, and AOL proxies are here. I hope Wiki recognized there are 5 people that are against this. I have not called for THOUSANDS of people to strike at this site, and if I am violating a Wiki policy, I apologize. IF I am not supposed to be posting here, I apologize. My goal was to assist those that wanted this article to stay by supplying citations for what the article it stating. The points that the DELETE people were stating, that there were none of. If this complicates things, Payneos, let me know. I was asking for help, so we can gather as much information as we can as possible. Not like there is a little network of S p a z worshippers, or anti-pests right? Dugout Doug 10:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep Fan articles are relevant. This group has done several notable things, mentioned in the article. I agree that there are already several precedents for similar articles. --Bill.matthews 10:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is about an active, newsmaking, entity. It operates independantly of the Opie and Anthony show and is thus entitled to its own entry. Proponents of deletion here would have you think this is a child entry, but evidence suggests otherwise. Particularly the actions in the "Assault on the Media Campaign" in which Opie and Anthony and XM Satellite Radio distanced themselves from.Krispykremekiller 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep The pests who are actively involved on a daily basis warrant the mention on wikipedia. The Opie and Anthony Show prides itself on the full access the fans have to the show and the shaping of it. To deny the impact of this whether it be through Assaults on the Media, Frequent Callers, Pest attacks, so on and so forth does not tell the whole story of what this radio show does. Calling the pests a blight on wikipedia OnA page is unfounded and untrue. ~~ Boston Strangler from FBA

For those who are still not convinced, this little gem that is most certainly "Fancruft incarnate"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Fan_Network seems to be thriving and acceptable. COnsider the hypocracy of a deletion before you make your next decision. Payneos 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To further myself, I notice a lot of cries of "Fancruft", yet no specific lines cited. Rather than delete the whole article, nobody seems to be proposing we rewrite it better and more accurately, and less POV since some seem to think that it is. It's important that people point out what's wrong more specifically, rather than just say one or two words and think they've done their duty. Payneos 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payneos, why must every discussion related to O&A always inevitably end up with a comparison to something related to Howard Stern? Some of those Stern wikipedia articles should be afd as well. Why bring them up here?

Set precident. The Howard Stern articles came first, and I'm using them for the argument's sake. Payneos 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "precedent" on AFD in as much as we never keep inappropriate articles because of the existence of other inappropriate articles. If there are articles which should be deleted, nominate them. But don't go nominating articles just to make a point, please. --kingboyk 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet none of you are getting what I'm arguing. YOu're setting up for deletion of many credible and worthy articles, particularly if you let this one go. Every article I have cited I believe is worthy of this encyclopedia, however, what you are arguing is that they are not. It is your job as the editor(s) against THIS article to call for their deletion, not mine, because I think all the articles ARE worthy. Yet I have seen no movement by any editor to do so. Payneos 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payneos, bring them up to AfD then, and state your case for their deletion. I'd probably make the case for a few of them to be honest. Wildthing61476 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Keep The O&A Army which was later called "The Pests" are organized and work by themselves. Tyler--Durden 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • and this merits an article HOW?--XMBRIAN 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Good, now we can hang a label on. I wonder how it passes WP:CORP? (rhetorical question ;-) )Ohconfucius 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which to counter your sarcasm, I would say it is notable, or did you convienently overlook the slew of articles linked in defense of notability? Payneos 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Clearly there is president for fan groups of relevance. The issue here is "what is relevant?" I think the fact that the O&A Army/Pests have been mentioned in numerous news stories makes a strong case for relevance. It should also be noted that someone is looking for sock puppets to argue for deletion on a Howard Stern message board - http://www.SternFanNetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?s=ddc51d0640abe05089c06cca5b9ce586&threadid=166266 

--Tlynch5 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is your only contrib. to wikipedia, so I'd have to say that you must be a sock puppet from FBA.--XMBRIAN 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • also your account was created eleven minutes before you made your comment. Admins should take ALL these things into consideration!--XMBRIAN 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never contributed to an article that required registration so yes this is a new account. I'm not really for or against this article but I think the people from Stern Fan Network are trying to manipulate it for their own reasons and I think if they are successful it sets a bad president. You wouldn't happen to be the guy that started the thread I linked are you?--Tlynch5 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • no i am not.--XMBRIAN 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. You must lose a lot of arguements huh XMPEOPLESCHAMPBRIAN? I didnt have to read more then the first line of Wiki's defination of a Sock Puppet to learn "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. " That would mean, peole registering today, as long as they are not, say, Me and Payneos registering alternate names, are NOT Sock Puppets. They are, USERS. Now, if I go and register 30 names and weigh in on this tipoc with all of them, those 30 names would be Dugout Doug Sock Puppets. But people registering and acting on their own, are not. Wow, you think everyone is an idiot huh? Oh yeah, I am SURE the personal attacks you make on me are awaying the neutral Wiki Editors to your stance on this debate. Keep digging big man.Dugout Doug 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People registering only for the purpose of this argument are not USERS either, they are meat puppets. Meat puppets are still against wikipedia policy. Look at this link and scroll down to Meat Puppets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Accounts_created_by_brand_new_users_acting_together_.28.27meatpuppets.27.29

Water Boy 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Water Boy[reply]

However, unlike meatpuppets, this discussion is bringing in people who, rather than will be a detriment to Wikipedia, will instead contribute to this and many other articles on topics they know something aboot. These aren't meatpuppets, they are real editors, and many will see their work around Wikipedia soon enough. Payneos 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good if new people would come here to contribute rather than vandalize. I just don't see how you can make that statement aboot their intended future work like it is a fact.Water Boy 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Water Boy[reply]
    • In a general sense, I always assume authors, unless being brash and arrogant, and clearly showing an agenda, are Acting in good faith. Payneos 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do I know that it WASN'T you, Doug? All I'm saying is that that someone coming in on their first edit on Wikipedia with something like this HAS TO raise an eyebrow.--XMBRIAN 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference you miss here. The Pests may be savages when it comes to enemies of the show, but in a place like Wikipedia, they have respect and a demenaor that is quite becoming of this encyclopedia. To be any other way, I know they realize would be detrimental to their efforts, and they know this well. Therefore, any random IP could quite possibly be that, and if necessary, Wikipedia Admin have the power to check. I think they would find, however, there is jus t an outpouring of support for the article. Payneos 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Payneos, do you need a laxative, because you look like you are full of shit! The pests have respect for Wikipedia? Ha! Need I search Wackbag for that thread calling all pests to attack Howard Stern's article last fall? Don't bother answering that question, because I'm going to bed now and I won't be checking this page until tomorrow afternoon, and by then it won't be relevant.--XMBRIAN 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of what side of the argument you are on, PLEASE remember to stick to Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Your inflammatory comments are hurting your cause as much as the "sockpuppets" hurt the cause of keeping the article. Wildthing61476 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was attempting to make a really bad joke... not making an attack.--XMBRIAN 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get rid of the "pests" or the "army" then you should never have anything for other large fan bases, such as trekkies,and the Browncoats. Not to mention, where will it stop. is there gonna be a discussion everytime someone doesn't like the topic. can i start a discussion on removing any thing have to do with conspiricy theories around 911 or the theory of evolution. whether people like it or not, fans of anything have a voice and when they are mentioned in Forbes magazine, or as a parody on SNL then they have become a bigger part of a wider picture. Frrrunkus 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Frrrunkus[reply]

You can, but it's obvious by your writings you stand for those entries for being in Wikipedia for the same reason that I do. To delete those articles is as much of a detriment to Wikipedia as to delete this one. The Pests have achieved enough notoriety to warrant a large scale article such as this one, and the evidence has been shown in cited articles from FMQB, Foundry, Orbitcast, and even Forbes Magazine. This isn't your average fan-following, to some it's a way of life (which was parodied once by the Church of Opie, since shut down to waning interest in the joke.) Payneos 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The comparison between the "Pests" and Trekkies is odious and when you compare the two it doesn't hold. Trekkies have been around for decades, have had documentaries based on them, have contributed to making Star Trek a household name, and number in the millions the world over. The O&A Pests are just a handful of hardcore O&A fans by comparison, and O&A are far from household names. If this article were to stay then it would open the doors for Wikipedia to be cluttered with "articles" (I use that term loosely) for every drive-time morning DJ/crew in the country. I am not saying that O&A shouldn't have an article, they most certainly should no matter what I think of them, but not their fans.Shemps 14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, however, does not explain the existance of Browncoats on Wikipedia, whom have only been around since 2003. Sometimes, that "Handful of fans" is noteworthy, particularly when they make major news media outlets (Like the Pests) or can drastically manipulate DVD sales (like the Browncoats). Payneos 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that the Browncoats are very noteworthy, but at least they didn't include a section on "Famous Browncoats". This pest article is just a way for some clowns to put their names on another website.Water Boy 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Water Boy[reply]
    • Because the Browncoats are a different entity than the pests. What the Browncoats do is stat petitions and attend Conventions to support the fallen show, Firefly. Pests, however, are frequently mentioned on the show and in the articles they appear in, by name. Thus, some have earned notable individual recognition. Payneos 15:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - The Pests are a force in their own right. They often act without the permission of the Opie and Anthony show. All of thier attacks are well documented. They definitely deserve to have their own article. GA. Wizardnug 11:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "Browncoats" should have an article either. Firefly is not a relevant enough show, at least not yet. Perhaps a blurb about the Browncoats on the Firefly page, but most definately not an entire page. Hell, I didn't even know what a Browncoat was until just now. The same for the Pests, a blurb on the O&A page would be just fine. I also have to agree with the folks who are taking umbrage with the "Famous Pests" section. If you take a poll anywhere except an O&A gathering, I'll bet the vast majority of folks will not know who "Dugout Doug" or "General Bam" are. As a group they may have a tiny bit of noteriety (as far as the O&A Universe is concerned) but as individuals they have none at all.Shemps 23:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, disagree. Browncoats were largely responsible for Serenity (the movie) being able to be filmed at all, and have been a massive force behind the sales of Firefly/Serenity DVDs, even organizing certain days where everyone will buy a copy off of... say... Amazon.com, in which it will force sales for the week into teh #1 or #2 slot. But enough aboot Browncoats, that's for another time. The point is, sometimes a fan following has become large enough and notable enough to a point where it can no longer be ignored by even Wikipedia. Trekkies, Browncoats, The Wack Pack, The Pests, in the end, they all have their own reasons for being on Wikipedia, but they all belong here. Payneos 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment: Since this has largely turned into a mess and the votes are more or less tied, I'm closing this as "no consensus". This has been an example of what an AfD discussion should not be. A place in Wikipedia is not a prize to be granted to cool shows or groups, or to be denied on the basis of dislike for a group of fans with nothing better to do. The article should be renominated a couple of months from now; in the meantime, the fans should do a better work of finding references and tidying up the text, and the detractors should amass clear arguments based on policy and which do not resort to the word "cruft" or insults of any kind. There. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O%26A_Army&oldid=1071033452"