Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military brat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 keep. - Bobet 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Military brat
I encountered this page today and was shocked: it is a completely unsourced article, complete with a POV list, including living people. I'm not sure what to do with it, but I see little redeeming value in this. I'm not entirely sure, so feel free to disagree. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep the article but remove the list. The term "Military Brat" seems to be commonly used, but the list of military brats and "possible" military brats is undeniably POV. --TBCΦtalk? 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- See my question for Dark below. How is this list any different from those lists of people who are left-handed? Catholic? Eagle Scouts? Personally, I don't like these lists, but if Wikipedia allows list of famous people, why does this one pose a POV problem when others do not? Also, all but one of the people left on the list can be confirmed as a Military Brat. I left one because her biography's sound like a person who could have been a military brat, and somebody obviously added her thinking she was.Balloonman 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Many people consider the word "brat" to be a rather crude slur. It isn't meant to be so here, but if you're not familiar with the history of the word it's a fair assumption. --Charlene 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed... but if the criticism comes from a lack of understanding of the term, then I have to ask, does TBC still feel that the list is POV? I'm asking this because this is a work in progress, and I can't address the concern if the concern is based upon an incorrect understanding of the term. Does he say that it is "undeniably POV" because he sees the "Brat" and doesn't understand the meaning? Or is there another reason that I am missing that makes this list different from other lists of famous people? It also raises questions about the need to have this AfD if the original proposer did so failing to understand the term.Balloonman 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've never said that I thought the term had some sort of negative connotation. Anyhow, yes, I do feel the list is still POV, mainly because the list contains numerous "possible" military brats, meaning that the writer is only assuming the person is a "military brat". --TBCΦtalk? 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I don't see how POV comes up, as there is no bias in saying they are possible military brats. In fact, given the comments afterwards, I'd say "Unknown Branch of service" would be a better title. But really, I think your criticsm is off-target. That problem isn't POV at all. Mister.Manticore 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the ONE person whose status was unconfirmed. AS I mentioned above, all of the others (in that section) are known to be military brats, just not the branch of service. If you hit "Edit page" on your link you would see that all but one had comments associated with them stating that their status as a military brat was confirmed. In subsequent edits, these comments were brought to the main user page to be visible. Balloonman 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Responding to Manticore's comment, when the heading says "status unconfirmed", it gives me an impression that the author of the page doesn't know if the person is still in the army or not, thus POV. As for Ballonman's comment, please realize that when I first commented none of the "possible" military brats were confirmed.--TBCΦtalk? 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then perhaps that's something to change yourself to make more clear, or bring up on the article's Talk page. I can understand your problem, but it's not a deletion problem, it's a content-problem. They are different things. In this case, the thing to do is seek out confirmation/refutation. I don't much care whether it's left there or not pending that action, since it's not derogatory in any way, but if you do, move it to the talk page. Mister.Manticore 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Content related problems can and often do lead to the deletion of an article, especially if the content of said article violates WP:N, WP:OR, WP:POV, or WP:RS. Either way though, I voted to keep this article, so why are we debating my above comments?--TBCΦtalk? 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, we're discussing something because you brought it up. Now I would say this is clearly a better choice for the article's talk page, but you didn't bring it up there, so it gets discussed here. And while sometimes content does merit deletion of an article, it doesn't always. Too many people jump to deletion when other choices are much better. It's quite a bother really. And in response to your question below, we don't need a list of EVERY person. However, some folks like to see examples, so providing a few people is worth doing. Since the backgrounds of many people are verifiable, and that often includes the circumstances of their childhood, it's perfectly reasonable to put that information in this article. Mister.Manticore 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I brought it up because AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Regardless, I'm fine with a few examples (perhaps nine or ten), but having over fourty is unreasonable.--TBCΦtalk? 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, bring it up on the article's talk page. There's actually a discussion there already on this. Chime in on it! Mister.Manticore 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I brought it up because AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Regardless, I'm fine with a few examples (perhaps nine or ten), but having over fourty is unreasonable.--TBCΦtalk? 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, we're discussing something because you brought it up. Now I would say this is clearly a better choice for the article's talk page, but you didn't bring it up there, so it gets discussed here. And while sometimes content does merit deletion of an article, it doesn't always. Too many people jump to deletion when other choices are much better. It's quite a bother really. And in response to your question below, we don't need a list of EVERY person. However, some folks like to see examples, so providing a few people is worth doing. Since the backgrounds of many people are verifiable, and that often includes the circumstances of their childhood, it's perfectly reasonable to put that information in this article. Mister.Manticore 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Content related problems can and often do lead to the deletion of an article, especially if the content of said article violates WP:N, WP:OR, WP:POV, or WP:RS. Either way though, I voted to keep this article, so why are we debating my above comments?--TBCΦtalk? 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then perhaps that's something to change yourself to make more clear, or bring up on the article's Talk page. I can understand your problem, but it's not a deletion problem, it's a content-problem. They are different things. In this case, the thing to do is seek out confirmation/refutation. I don't much care whether it's left there or not pending that action, since it's not derogatory in any way, but if you do, move it to the talk page. Mister.Manticore 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Responding to Manticore's comment, when the heading says "status unconfirmed", it gives me an impression that the author of the page doesn't know if the person is still in the army or not, thus POV. As for Ballonman's comment, please realize that when I first commented none of the "possible" military brats were confirmed.--TBCΦtalk? 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've never said that I thought the term had some sort of negative connotation. Anyhow, yes, I do feel the list is still POV, mainly because the list contains numerous "possible" military brats, meaning that the writer is only assuming the person is a "military brat". --TBCΦtalk? 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed... but if the criticism comes from a lack of understanding of the term, then I have to ask, does TBC still feel that the list is POV? I'm asking this because this is a work in progress, and I can't address the concern if the concern is based upon an incorrect understanding of the term. Does he say that it is "undeniably POV" because he sees the "Brat" and doesn't understand the meaning? Or is there another reason that I am missing that makes this list different from other lists of famous people? It also raises questions about the need to have this AfD if the original proposer did so failing to understand the term.Balloonman 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Many people consider the word "brat" to be a rather crude slur. It isn't meant to be so here, but if you're not familiar with the history of the word it's a fair assumption. --Charlene 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, why do we need a list of every person that a slang (albeit well known) term applies to? For example, grease monkey is a notable slang term for a mechanic, but that doesn't mean we should include every notable mechanic, real or fictional, within the article.--TBCΦtalk? 04:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why do we need lists of famous Baptist? Catholics? Left-handers? Personally, I don't like these lists, but the reason why one would keep it here is because [Military Brat] isn't simply a slang term. [Military Brat]s are people who have been affected by who/what they are. Military Brat is used to indicate one who has been affect by a particular culture.Balloonman 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Military Brats" is, and has always been, a slang term. Whether or not a person is effected by the term does not make it any more formal. For example, ethnic slurs have often effected millions of lives, yet does it mean we should list many of the notable people that they apply to?--TBCΦtalk? 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ethnic Slurs are slurs, not a description of a culture or sociological group of people. Military Brat is a term used to describe a unique identifiable researched culture. To call a person an ethnic slur does not describe describe the socio-economic-cultural influences that have contributed to who that person is. It says more about the person using the slur. Psychologist and sociologist do not study ethnic slurs, they study the population that the slurs represent. Military brat does tell you about the person it is used to describe. To know that somebody is a military brat tells you something about that person's upbringing and what made that person who he/she is. So your comparison to an ethnic slur is a strawman agrument. I am still waiting for somebody to give me a reasonable rationale as to why a list of famous military brats is less appropriate than famous left-handed people! Or any one of the other lists on Wikipedia. I don't care for lists, but I'm still waiting for somebody to give a rataional why this list is worse than left handers!Balloonman 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I've stated above, slangs should not include lists of people that apply to the term. If you really wanted to have a list of notable children with parents in the military, then why not create List of children with parents in the military?--TBCΦtalk? 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the term Military brat is used mainly in the US and the UK and not commonly in other parts of the world, thus using the term to classify children with parents from other countries in the military is POV.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- The term may be used primarily in the US/Canada/Britian, but the phenomena is universal. Military Brat is not merely a slang term used to describe children of military personell, but rather the effects of growing up in a military community.Balloonman 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the term Military brat is used mainly in the US and the UK and not commonly in other parts of the world, thus using the term to classify children with parents from other countries in the military is POV.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I've stated above, slangs should not include lists of people that apply to the term. If you really wanted to have a list of notable children with parents in the military, then why not create List of children with parents in the military?--TBCΦtalk? 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ethnic Slurs are slurs, not a description of a culture or sociological group of people. Military Brat is a term used to describe a unique identifiable researched culture. To call a person an ethnic slur does not describe describe the socio-economic-cultural influences that have contributed to who that person is. It says more about the person using the slur. Psychologist and sociologist do not study ethnic slurs, they study the population that the slurs represent. Military brat does tell you about the person it is used to describe. To know that somebody is a military brat tells you something about that person's upbringing and what made that person who he/she is. So your comparison to an ethnic slur is a strawman agrument. I am still waiting for somebody to give me a reasonable rationale as to why a list of famous military brats is less appropriate than famous left-handed people! Or any one of the other lists on Wikipedia. I don't care for lists, but I'm still waiting for somebody to give a rataional why this list is worse than left handers!Balloonman 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Military Brats" is, and has always been, a slang term. Whether or not a person is effected by the term does not make it any more formal. For example, ethnic slurs have often effected millions of lives, yet does it mean we should list many of the notable people that they apply to?--TBCΦtalk? 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why do we need lists of famous Baptist? Catholics? Left-handers? Personally, I don't like these lists, but the reason why one would keep it here is because [Military Brat] isn't simply a slang term. [Military Brat]s are people who have been affected by who/what they are. Military Brat is used to indicate one who has been affect by a particular culture.Balloonman 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Clean-up There are some poorly written parts in this article, but I don't see it as deletion material. It is a valid concept, and a commonly used phrase. Better than civilian dependents anyway. BLP problems don't really apply, since there's nothing inherently pejorative about being a military brat. POV? I'm afraid I don't see how, except for being US-centric, but that's hardly a surprise. Worldwide perspective is hard when you're editors are condensd into a small area. At the least though, keeping some examples is a good idea. Mister.Manticore 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- There appear to be few or no sources for any of the "examples" of military brats, or even the definition itself. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Then mark the page as unsourced. Doesn't mean it's not unsourceable. I found at least one book with the title as "Military Brats" and a google scholar search coms up with more [1]. Seriously, this article might be sketchy, but it's certainly improvable. As for the examples, um, check their bios on Wikipedia. I checked a dozen. Some may be iffy on the whether or not they were a military brat, but most of their Wikipedia articles do mention a military background. The only exception I found was Mark Hamill, and well, [2] confirms it, so not a problem in his case. Probably needs to be added to his Wikipedia article at that. I can't attest to the others, but I suggest the article's talk page as a place to bring it up instead of AfD. Mister.Manticore 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per User:TBC. Auto movil 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with Cleanup - The article needs citations and cleanup, but other than that is is fine. I like the lists, but if they can't be sourced they gotta go. -bobby 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --164.107.92.120 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I am currently working on updating this article---see how it looked yesterday and you would be truly shocked!
- As for the "POV list." The list of "Unknown" brats was MUCH longer. I'm not a big fan of lists, but having said that, you can find list of famous people in almost every category: List of famous left-handed people,List of Eagle Scouts, List of Baptists, or List of famous tuberculosis victims. If a list, by default is POV, then all of these lists have to be deleted. Many of them are not well cited. When I was working on it last night I eliminated a number of people I couldn't confirm and this has been a subject of discussion on the articles talk page. But is not worthy of deleting the article on this principle. I debated adding links to the one's I found, but chose not to for consistency. (This section and the one on pop culture are my two least favorite sections.)
- Being left-handed is a fact. Being an eagle scout is a fact. Being a "brat" is an opinion. —Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Being a military brat is a fact too... one either has a military parent or one doesn't. The article quoting Admiral Blair, Admiral Blair says, There’s a standard term for the military child: "Brat." The Navy also uses the term "Junior," but "Brat" seems to cut across all the services. While it sounds pejorative, it’s actually a term of great affection. [3] Military brat is not synonymous with Brat. Mary Edwards Wertsch, author of "Military Brats: Legacies of Childhood inside the fortress" says that brats have such values as idealism, antiracisism, loyalty, patriotism and honesty. These phrases would not be used if brat was derogatory. ("Military brats are a special breed" by Rudi Williams American Forces Press Services.)
- Being left-handed is a fact. Being an eagle scout is a fact. Being a "brat" is an opinion. —Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think I just realized something, are you associating the term Military Brat with the term Brat? If so, I understand better your concern. In which case, it is completely unjustified as it does not represent what the term Military Brat means. Military Brat is not in any way derogatory. IN fact, most brats embrace the term. The two terms are not interchangeable, being a military brat is a point of fact, not opinion.Balloonman 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let me ask you a question, is the reason why you think the "POV List" is POV because you believe that it is a judgement on the people cited? That by calling "Mark Hammill" a military brat we are evaluating him in some derogatory manner as compared to stating a simple fact? Are you interpretting the list as "Mark Hammill is a spoiled brat" as compared to "Mark Hammill's father was in the military?" If so, then your concern about the "POV list" has been addressed. It is not a judgement on the individuals, but rather a statement of fact. Did the person listed grow up as a military brat? Balloonman 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- As for the statement, There appear to be few or no sources for ... even the definition itself.' Do a quick search through wikipedia articles and I doubt if you will find many that cite sources for the definition itself. The only time you might find a citation is the use of an usual term/phrase. The term military brat is not an unusual term that needs special sources to define---ask ANY military brat what that means and they will give you a similar definition. This is common knowledge.
- Reading Dark's comments about "Brat" being an opinion, I think he said, "even the definition itself" is in reference to the "POV list." I think he was looking for a definition as to why these people were "Brats" not realizing that "Brats" is a term used positively in reference to military dependents.Balloonman 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- As for citations---no problem, those can be added without much though---but that was my next step in improving the article anyway... I just couldn't handle what was there older version of military bratBalloonman 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep if you can remove the POV edits. SunStar Net 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what is not WP:OR is a dicdef. Guy 16:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Guy can you elaborate on why you think this is Original Research? Military Brat's are a subject that has a fair amount of research behind it. I can undestand the POV arguments (as this is a work in progress) but if I'm going to address your concern when I work on it, I need to better understand your concern.Balloonman 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- As long as there are no citations or sources from credible resources, then most users will assume that an article might be original research.--TBCΦtalk? 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just hit the random article feature 10 times. I came up 0-10 for articles that had a single citation! (Three were labeled stubs.) Are all of those original research? Just because the redaction that was read didn't have any citations doesn't mean that it is original research. Plus, the contributions to this last night should alieve that concern.Balloonman 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- As long as there are no citations or sources from credible resources, then most users will assume that an article might be original research.--TBCΦtalk? 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Clean up and make NPOV and it would be a stronger keep. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: rather an extreme case of original research. Answer to question above: the sections "School Life", "Frequent and Unexpected Moves", "Brats impact Military Member's Careers", "Patriotism" are extreme original research/personal essays, absolutely unsourced, absolutely unencyclopedic. Ekjon Lok 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Um, School life, Frequent and Unexpect moves, impact on Military Member's careers may be unsourced, but they are hardly "extreme" original research. I wouldn't even say it's original research. If you want sources try: [4] or [5]. All these positions are well-represented in terms of study and reporting on them. Even Patriotism is documented elsewhere. Yes, this article may be poorly written, but your comments are an exaggeration. Mister.Manticore 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I still think most of it is original research. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, a secondary source; we are supposed to summarize and report in a neutral manner on what is written in reputable primary sources. All those sections do not cite any primary sources (and I frankly doubt you can find any neutral, respectable sources), so it very much looks like original research, or at least private opinion by the original contributor (which is also unacceptable by encyclopedic standards). I very much urge everyone to stand back and reflect, for a moment, whether this information is really appropriate for a respectable general-knowledge encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia aspires to be. Ekjon Lok 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, to me, it's an unquestioned "Yes, of course Wikipedia should have information on this subject" as Military brats are a distinct population, in fact, the whole problem of civilian depedents is a real issue of substantive importance, and it is unique enough to warrant its own article. And I'm sorry, but there is a fair amount of scientific study on them. Here's an example: [6]. That certainly seems reputable to me. The US Gov't also does reports. See page 28 of this document [7] for a description of what the services do. I'm sure the GAO has more, but they have so much, it's hard to find things sometimes. But they certainly meet the criteria of a neutral, respectable source. There's probably more from other country's militaries, and having that would be important, but I must admit ignorance of that. I find your perspective on this article difficult to comprehend. I can understand saying this article isn't great, and needs work, but your arguments for deletion just don't make sense to me. Problems perhaps, but rectifiable ones. Why is this article any different than an article on female body shape or nuclear family.
- I can -- just possibly -- agree with the solution proposed by the author of the comment just below: slash the article to a paragraph or so, and build up from that using actual sources. (Provided you can find some valuable primary sources, that is.) As the comment below says, "delete all content -- keep the title". Ekjon Lok 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, as this article just isn't bad enough that it needs that kind of action. There are times that is a good idea, but in this case, it simply is not necessary. It can be easily fixed a stage at a time. And seriously, there are sources, even if you don't know about them. Still, if you want, go to the talk page, bring up your ideas there. Mister.Manticore 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can -- just possibly -- agree with the solution proposed by the author of the comment just below: slash the article to a paragraph or so, and build up from that using actual sources. (Provided you can find some valuable primary sources, that is.) As the comment below says, "delete all content -- keep the title". Ekjon Lok 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, to me, it's an unquestioned "Yes, of course Wikipedia should have information on this subject" as Military brats are a distinct population, in fact, the whole problem of civilian depedents is a real issue of substantive importance, and it is unique enough to warrant its own article. And I'm sorry, but there is a fair amount of scientific study on them. Here's an example: [6]. That certainly seems reputable to me. The US Gov't also does reports. See page 28 of this document [7] for a description of what the services do. I'm sure the GAO has more, but they have so much, it's hard to find things sometimes. But they certainly meet the criteria of a neutral, respectable source. There's probably more from other country's militaries, and having that would be important, but I must admit ignorance of that. I find your perspective on this article difficult to comprehend. I can understand saying this article isn't great, and needs work, but your arguments for deletion just don't make sense to me. Problems perhaps, but rectifiable ones. Why is this article any different than an article on female body shape or nuclear family.
- I still think most of it is original research. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, a secondary source; we are supposed to summarize and report in a neutral manner on what is written in reputable primary sources. All those sections do not cite any primary sources (and I frankly doubt you can find any neutral, respectable sources), so it very much looks like original research, or at least private opinion by the original contributor (which is also unacceptable by encyclopedic standards). I very much urge everyone to stand back and reflect, for a moment, whether this information is really appropriate for a respectable general-knowledge encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia aspires to be. Ekjon Lok 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, School life, Frequent and Unexpect moves, impact on Military Member's careers may be unsourced, but they are hardly "extreme" original research. I wouldn't even say it's original research. If you want sources try: [4] or [5]. All these positions are well-represented in terms of study and reporting on them. Even Patriotism is documented elsewhere. Yes, this article may be poorly written, but your comments are an exaggeration. Mister.Manticore 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Wow what a terrible article in its current state - so full of POV and OR. The listcruft needs to be trimmed down as well (possibly to zero). However, all excessive harshness aside, "Military brat" is a term thats definitely widely used (do a title search on Amazon.com). Recommend after the AFD, the closing admin slashes the article down to a paragraph or so (or message me, I'll do it) and building it up from there using some actual sources. Pretty much delete all the content, but keep the title. Wickethewok 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Remove the list of military brats, maybe create a category for them instead. Category:Military brats for example. TJ Spyke 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- I personally don't like lists of people, but before we get rid of the list, I want somebody to explain to me how a list of military brats is less acceptable than a list of famous left-handed people? Or Eagle Scout? Or people who suffered TB? Somebody (or multiple somebodies) took a lot of time to compile the list and without sound justification, I'm reluctant to get rid of it. I am not trying to be belligerent, but rather understand what the criticism is. I honestly do not see how a list of known Brats is a problem when the other lists are not. Balloonman 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Cbrown1023 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Has potential and people who are willing to bring it more in line with WP standards.Giddytrace 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What problems do you see with this article? Lack of sources, non-neutral point of view, writing that needs editing? When an article lacks sources, add a template asking for sources. When the point of view is not neutral, edit it to make it neutral. When an article needs cleanup, request cleanup. When an article lists appropriate examples, praise it for listing examples. When an article lists incorrect or questionable examples, remove or question them. Please let editors spend their time improving articles without forcing them to defend the existence of the article. Fg2 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-recognized concept. I expect that this article will be improved as time goes on. --Metropolitan90 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT Well, I've been working on this page for about 5 hours now. It's 2:30 a.m. so I'm going to bed. I ask you to look at the article as it stood two days ago and compare it to what was proposed for deletion. Then compare that to what now exists. This is a work in progress. I posted to the Wiki Help Desk asking for | help/advice because I knew it needed help---but there was only so much I could do in one night. As a person who has just recently started to become active on Wikipedia, this has been a very disillusioning process. I saw an article that was in desperate need of improvement and that has personal meaning to me. Start to work on said article. I ask for help/advice and instead of spending time improving said article, I have to defend it here. Yeah, I know that most people are saying keep, but that doesn't alleviate the frustration. BTW, the changes made tonight will be the last one's I make for a few days---I'll be travelling the rest of this week. But to be honest, I may or may not resume this endeavor when I return. Does the article still need help? Yes. I hold no illusions that it is finalized (I didn't even proof my own text), but I don't get paid by wikipedia to fix poorly written articles or put up with this. Again, as an essential newbie, this has turned me off of wikipedia somewhat.Balloonman 10:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT: Three other things to note. First, I have ordered two books from Inter Library Loan on the subject. Those will probably take a few weeks to arrive (long after this AfD is over.) Second, there are few other articles out there that I think need a lot of work. What can I do to prevent those articles from being nominated for deletion while enhancing them? This one most likely came to Dark's attention via the help desk or recent changes. If I start working on an existing article I don't want to have to defend it in an unfinished status. How does one mark a work in progress?Balloonman 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Qwerty1234 12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it could use some work, specifically the lists, but it is a real thing --Awiseman 18:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep was an interesting read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.72.232 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and continue to clean up, this can and should be much more than a dictionary definition. Yamaguchi先生 04:40, 4 November 2006
- 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.
