Talk:Norway lemming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
from VfD:
I thought the suicidal lemming myth had been pretty much debunked by now, and without that there's not much of an article. --fvw* 00:26, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
- Keep. It has indeed been debunked, e.g., for 18 months in our article Lemming; this article satisfies a former red link there, and should have its text replaced by the Norway Lemming 'graphs of the Lemming article, which should have (instead of the moved material) a 1- or 2-sentence summary linking to Norway Lemming. More text, e.g., distribution, unique morphology, etc. can of course be added. --Jerzy(t) 05:04, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
- Keep, just needs a re-write, not deleting. Dan100 17:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with Dan100. GRider\talk 19:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. VfD is not Cleanup. Bryan 01:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, yep, VfD is not cleanup. Wyss 02:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- As it stands , the current article is misinformation. If someone wants to create an article there later that is fine. DCEdwards1966 21:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Bad content is a basis for deletion when there is no real hope of an adequate rewrite; in this case, the needed content already exists and writing the replacement is essentially a clerical task. And we know of someone who can be reasonably expected to take that task on: there's an editor who's disgusted enough at the existing content to cast a vote that will be futile unless the current 5-2 vote turns into a 5-10 one, and who will surely will feel a strong itch to edit when the VfD is closed with a Keep decision. --Jerzy(t) 17:28, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
- Bad and inaccurate content should always be a reason for deletion. That way when someone finds the red link they may actually write a good article. As stated by several of the people voting to keep, VfD isn't cleanup. This article doesn't need cleanup. It needs to be written from scratch. How is keeping the article helping anyone? DCEdwards1966 17:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Bad content is a basis for deletion when there is no real hope of an adequate rewrite; in this case, the needed content already exists and writing the replacement is essentially a clerical task. And we know of someone who can be reasonably expected to take that task on: there's an editor who's disgusted enough at the existing content to cast a vote that will be futile unless the current 5-2 vote turns into a 5-10 one, and who will surely will feel a strong itch to edit when the VfD is closed with a Keep decision. --Jerzy(t) 17:28, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
- After removal of misinformation by fvw, article is a candidate for speedy deletion due to lack of context and/or definition. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:53, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've added some content. Is it any better now? ... Although I value fvw's contributions, it seems strange that this was listed on VfD. I mean, it takes time to nominate an article for deletion (and monitor its entry). Couldn't one just use that time to improve the article? -- Visviva 06:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Pah, you just made a few minor tweaks to my basicly comprehensive substub :-p. Nice job. And no, turning the subsubstub into a proper article takes 10 minutes, VfDing takes 20 seconds. Not that those 10 minutes would be wasted, but when I'm RC patrolling my priorities are on different things. --fvw* 07:32, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
- Change vote to keep, obviously. --fvw*
end moved discussion
[edit] Piper's poem
This is kind of an off question but isn't there a legend about a man who is responsible for directing the rats to the sea? Was this story alluding the the same species - lemmings?
PS:Just curious!!!
