Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedict Arnold (1683-1761)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Benedict Arnold (1683-1761)
- Delete not notable. --Revolución (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn. — Phil Welch 00:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Amren (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - only because it serves the purpose of explaining how General BA is V when his g-grandfather was the first. Detail like that would be distracting from General BA article. It also stops people from changing his father to IV, which has happened a couple of times --JimWae 02:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- That information can be merged. No need to spawn a separate article on a non-notable man who happens to be Benedict Arnold's father. --Revolución (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- I merged it. --Revolución (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Of course it can, but the BA article is already filled with too much detail. For me the issue is "Would merging improve the BA article?" not "Does wikipedia have too many articles?" --JimWae 04:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well what could you possibly add to the article? There is only "He was Benedict Arnold's father". --Revolución (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- your merge is not good--JimWae 04:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting criticism. However, I would like to know what is wrong with it. I do not know much at all about Benedict Arnold, but I tried to make the information fit. If there's something wrong, why don't you fix it? Is there anything notable about the man in this article that you can think of? --Revolución (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- because I have other things to do than fix up everybody else's awkward sentences. Articles do not need to be long--JimWae 04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, please. We are not talking about much information here. --Revolución (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you think length is the only factor important to article quality, you have much to learn. If that is not your thought, your argument is a presumptive attempt to build a straw man. Btw, I have fixed your merge - and that will suffice until another self-appointed guardian of "purity" comes along and takes it out again with the claim that "years should be used instead of Roman numerals"--JimWae 05:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- When did I ever say that? I do not care about length, I care about the importance of the subject matter. --Revolución (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you think length is the only factor important to article quality, you have much to learn. If that is not your thought, your argument is a presumptive attempt to build a straw man. Btw, I have fixed your merge - and that will suffice until another self-appointed guardian of "purity" comes along and takes it out again with the claim that "years should be used instead of Roman numerals"--JimWae 05:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, please. We are not talking about much information here. --Revolución (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- because I have other things to do than fix up everybody else's awkward sentences. Articles do not need to be long--JimWae 04:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting criticism. However, I would like to know what is wrong with it. I do not know much at all about Benedict Arnold, but I tried to make the information fit. If there's something wrong, why don't you fix it? Is there anything notable about the man in this article that you can think of? --Revolución (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Of course it can, but the BA article is already filled with too much detail. For me the issue is "Would merging improve the BA article?" not "Does wikipedia have too many articles?" --JimWae 04:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Jim, don't be obtuse. It's a one-sentence affair. Anything that short can be merged, and if it doesn't, we'll just have to live without that piece of information. / Peter Isotalo 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, it can be merged (and has been, and I even fixed it up), but I find this article useful to retain info after the BA V article gets edited. I see no downside to keeping the article on his father - it is not a peacock page. The person who proposed the deletion has done some slick editing of this discussion --JimWae 02:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- The downside is that we keep an article that can't be expanded with useful, encyclopedic information. How is it helpful to keep a separate article just to note a one-sentence fact that is alreeady mentioned in a more appropriate article? It's just not convincing. / Peter Isotalo 15:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, it can be merged (and has been, and I even fixed it up), but I find this article useful to retain info after the BA V article gets edited. I see no downside to keeping the article on his father - it is not a peacock page. The person who proposed the deletion has done some slick editing of this discussion --JimWae 02:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. / Peter Isotalo 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, bio with no reasonable claim to notability. Martg76 18:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as above. JYolkowski // talk 19:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as above. Ant ie talk 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
