Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-saxon hunting

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 keep. But try to edit it. Woohookitty 01:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-saxon hunting

Please either help me edit this piece or delete it. I wrote this, it is original research.CelineDionFan82 04:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• CommentThis is a lie, check the edit history. CelineDionFan82 is a probable sock puppet of Musachachado, a persistant vandal. See WP:VIP Casito⇝Talk 05:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, Casito is slightly wrong here. The persistent vandal Musachachado/CelineDionFan82/SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem etc. did in fact upload this text as an anon (you can tell because the IP also engages in Musachachado-style vandalism of Swiss cheese). This makes this highly suspicious article a very likely copyvio or original research.--Pharos 05:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment4.174.3.171 is a Dial-up connection from orlando1.level3.net, the ISP that this troll uses, so I agree that it is probably an anon connection from him. That being said, speedy delete per author's request dosn't apply to articles created by a sockpuppet, so I think he is still being deceitful in his request. -Casito⇝Talk 18:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Are you so dense that you cannot possibly fathom a world where people are not pure vandals or pure angels? Just because I had some fun when I was new to this system doesn't mean that I'm utterly incapable of stringing more than two words together for non-spoof purposes. I'm sure by now you've read my rational and helpful contributions to Hearsay and the Best Evidence Rule, for instance. If you've been stewing at home analysing my modus operandi for as long as it seems you have, I am sure you can tell that this article in controversy is written in the same tone as many of the edits you have denounced. I posted this as a test and need it either 'wikified' or otherwise edited, or if not, then deleted. --Oh, by the way, I just hit the "swiss cheese" article again, for old time's sake. SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 06:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Look, the great majority of your edits have been have been vandalistic, and you have misrepresented yourself a number of times (through sockpuppets etc.). But I've looked over the article again and agree you likely did write it; it is certainly in your style. However, if you wish to make valid contributions to Wikipedia, you must abandon vandalism entirely; otherwise everything you do will be suspect. I hope you can come over your vandalism penchant, and become a valued contributor to Wikipedia.--Pharos 18:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Article history says otherwise. Abstain drini ☎ 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment By god! A speedy delete tag, VfD tag, neutrality dispute, factual accuracy dispute, Wikisource request, cleanup request, and a Wikify request all in one article! This may be a new record. I'm not judging the article because I haven't read it, but for one article that's a lot of unfortunate tags. CanadianCaesar 06:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I got rid of the speedy tag, because it is plainly not a candidate. I'm not sure how to vote though. Is this info already elsewhere? If not, we should keep it, but it needs proper referencing to make sure it isn't an essay. -Splash 07:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As it turns out, the edit I was referring to has been sent to BJAODN. Turns out we was trolled CanadianCaesar 04:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Actually, I think it's quite a good and interesting article, although maybe it could do with wikification. I see no attempt to justify the NPOV and accuracy flags on the talk page. PatGallacher 11:31, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup although article isn't in that bad shape at the moment but needs verification. I don't have any concern about NPOV with this. Capitalistroadster 13:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 14:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that the article isn't original research. Alleged original author indicates that it is. Pburka 15:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment to drini, yes I am the author of this piece. I posted this article when I was brand-new to wikipedia, and didn't have a user name yet. I put it on here more as practice than anything. The problem is, I realised that it is not wikified, etc...and my source list got wiped out. I do remember most of the primary sources I used however. (see this article's talk page if you will). It is "orginal research" in that I worked with primary sources and wrote my own article, but not "original research" in the Wikipedia sense in that I am not propounding any radical or non-traditonal view of the subject. All assertions herein are based in primary source material within a framework of knowledge gleaned from peer-reviewed secondary sources and education. This might be a good article, but I need your guys' help in editing it and making it more "wiki" friendly. As it is now, I am no longer sure it has a place here. thanks.CelineDionFan82 16:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's original research, alright. It's also highly POV and based on ghosts of information. Take it from the author, the article really doesn't belong. It shows signs of being in service of some other agenda, or at least being ready for one, and it would be pretty easy to punch holes in it from a historical point of view. I hope I don't need to do that here to be believed that the holes exist, that the article is not encyclopedic. If you don't believe me, ask any other medievalist. Geogre 20:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CelineDionFan82 (talk · contribs) = Musachachado (talk · contribs) = 4.174.3.171 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, they are all the same troll, feigning ignorance and trying to create trouble. The clear contrast between this article and the other contributions leads me to believe this is probably a copyvio, and hardly trustworthy in any case.--Pharos 21:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Simply clean the article up and edit it into sections. -- Judson 22:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — it's notable and of some historical interest. — RJH 23:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article is the only significant text contribution of a persistent vandal who has been banned; the text is very likely a copyvio or original research.--Pharos 04:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment'. This is not a copyright violation. I wrote this article; it is part of a series I did contrasting Roman Law, Feudal Law, and Germanic Tribal Law for my Baccalaureate Degree. I nominated it for deletion since it didn't fit the wikipedia format; but with all the help its getting, it is looking very nice. Thanks for all4.171.117.135 04:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: This is coming from a banned user, a troll and a vandal that must post anonymously. I would not believe anything this person says.--Pharos 05:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Follow up: I find it very unfortunate that you have to resort to such name-calling simply out of your jealousy at my superior intellect. I have a MA in medieval history from Boston College (which is actually the foremost institution in America to study early medieval history) and a JD (Law Degree) from NYU. I have made several significant contributions to legal articles here under the username CelineDionFan82. Look them up. Furthermore, does this article look like vandalism or a spoof? Just for the record, I was blocked for "sock puppetry," for which I have apologised, and NOT for any "vandalism" or "trolling."SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 05:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
        • WP:Civility. Also, please note that accusations of sock-puppetry are well warranted in this context, given that you have used multiple user names on this page itself. Xoloz 07:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. It's a well written article given the controversial nature of its origins but possibly still worthy for an encyclopedia. JamesBurns 08:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup notable topic with potential for expansion. Xoloz 17:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. Worthwhile topic, but this version is unsourced. Is this a term paper? -Willmcw 23:08, July 22, 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.