Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatherland (novel)

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. Splash 00:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatherland (novel)

This article is one of the worst I've read on Wikipedia. It is churlishly written, full of factual and detail errors obvious to any reader of the book and is wildly inconsistent from paragraph to paragraph. There is not a single paragraph in this article that doesn't contain major errors. In fact, the first sentence in the article contained no fewer than two glaring errors. This article was probably not written in good faith and by someone who hasn't even read the book. Rainbowwarrior1977 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think you miss the point to this entire enterprise (Wikipedia). If you feel the article is so vastly inferior than you do not just delete it, you edit it yourself and improve it. - PsyckoSama 22:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Vote Withheld I'll freely admit that I'm much more ignorant of the book (even though I read it) than the nominator appears to be. Perhaps you could provide some examples of the errors to which you allude? -Soltak 21:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Since you seem to be more familiar with the book, a more useful route might be for you to either rewrite the article, correcting the inaccuracies, or start over with a new article. (In which case you might want to make your case on the talk page.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The subject is one that is worthy of being in Wikipedia, and the criticisms you cite are not sufficient to delete the article. If you know stuff about the article, but think that is is SO poorly written, delete all the text and start again! Remember: Be Bold! Batmanand 22:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - fully agree with Batamanand. I don't think the article is thát bad. But I'm sure we have a special template for articles that don't meet certain quality standards. --IJzeren Jan 22:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment.I started to make corrections, like changing 1963 to 1964 in the first paragraph, but there are simply too many factual errors to efficiently correct. Just about every statement in this article contains a factual error. Listing them all right now would take all day, but lets take the first sentence. It had 1963 as the year the novel took place, not 1964, introduced the "Kripo" without explanation, or even calling it by its name (Kripo is a slang term), the Kripo is only a division of the SS for administrative purposes, as were all police officers, while the article makes it sound like it was a "division" of the main SS. The ideological split between the "police SS" and the old "military/ideological SS" is a major point of this novel. Lastly, the detective is investigating ONE death in Berlin, not a "series of deaths." He only realizes there are more deaths much later in the novel, not when the story beings. So there you have it, in the first sentence alone, there are FOUR major errors. Trust me when I say that almost EVERY single sentence in this rather long article holds at least one major factual or interpretational error. I WILL re-write this article AFTER this fallacious one is deleted, however.Rainbowwarrior1977 22:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think you understand what we are saying. I have not read the novel, and it sounds like you know far more about it than us. You would be the ideal person to write an excellent article about the novel. But we are not going to delete it, because what is the point? If you want to start now, just go to the article, go to "edit the article", highlight all the text and press "delete" on your keyboard. Bingo! Then you can start writing the new article. Deleting an article, however, is a more permanent measure. This involves deleting the ENTIRE article, including its name, history and all edits. Read The Deletion Policy. We only delete things that should not have been in Wikipedia in the first place. Fatherland should. And you are the person to make it so. So, best of luck. If you need help, there is plenty available. But start on that rewriting, and soon it will be the perfect article! If you need anything, contact any of us on our talk pages, or go to the community portal and ask. Good luck! Batmanand 22:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And if you don't have the time or inclination, you can just add {{totallydisputed}} to the top and leave it for someone else. 69.208.176.236 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia just so happens to be a wiki. Edit it if it's wrong. CanadianCaesar 23:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep {{sofixit}} --malathion ^talk 23:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As the nominator hasn't demonstrated any horrible factual errors, nor shown that this article wasn't written in "good faith" I have to vote to keep. If you don't like something, change it. By the way, one year's difference is hardly a "glaring error," especially in the world of fiction. -Soltak 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Are you an administrator? Are you saying I have permission to wipe out this article and start over again? The thing is, I've had bad experiences making changes before; whenever I've changed anything substantive, and believe me, this page needs it, the previous authors get really nasty and threatening for days on end. So that's why I would feel more comfortable deleting this article first, then re-writing it, to stave off any attacks from the previous editors (who seem to be either trolls or didn't read the book)Rainbowwarrior1977 15:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I know a couple of the posters are. In any event, it would be much more prudent to rewrite those portions of the article that are incorrect. I shouldn't think it would need to be gutted entirely. At least portions are correct, for example, most of the character descriptions. If you do run into trouble with the original author, you've got a number of people here that would be willing to back you up. -Soltak 16:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I still think that a major rewrite is better than a deletion. If they harrass you, there are plenty of ways to stop them - mediation, advocacy, arbitration committee if it comes to it. IF they ever say anything to you, please contact me (if you want) and I will be right behind you. I understand your concern, but feel it is unwarranted. So go for it! Batmanand 16:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is a section that you honestly feel is not salvageable, then the best course of action is usually to copy it to the talk page when you remove it. On the talk page, you can explain why you removed it. (That way if anyone disagrees with you, there's an obvious place to start the discussion, and your good faith is evident.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion is not a prerequisite for rewrites. - Thatdog 04:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fifteen years old and already this disgruntled? It can and i'm sure will be fixed, no reason for deletion. Skawave 14:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Thanks to RainbowWarrior1977 for his insightful and diplomatically worded insults. I wrote the article on Fatherland which seems to be causing him so much distress. When I began editing, the article simply ststed that the book "is a 1992 novel written by Robert Harris". It contained nothing more. I wrote the paragraphs on the plot, the list of characters, and the connections with Nineten Eighty-Four. And let me assure you, RainbowWarrior, that I have read the book (several times) and am well aware of the plotline. Yes, there were one or two little errors here and there, and I thank you for correcting them. However, I am not convinced that your other amendments have improved the quality of the article in any way. Finally, I would advise you to avoid using phrases such as "churlishly written" in the future, particularly when referring to an article written by a Cambridge historian! Thanks to everyone else for their support, it's very much appreciated!  :) Rusty2005 15:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've just read your lovely little comment, Mr RainbowWarrior, calling me a "troll". I don't wish to be threatening, but you really need to acquire some diplomacy. If you want to be an administrator, you're going to have to demonstrate the ability to debate constructively and present logical, coherent arguments. And it will seriously damage your reputation if you start calling editors - whether they are Cambridge students like me, or Mr Everybody chipping in with their knowledge - trolls. A piece of friendly advice, nothing more.  :) Rusty2005 15:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Good article; it was a good book, too, and quite notable. Antandrus (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've just been reading some of the previous edits made by RainbowWarrior1977. This User seems to have an absurd sense of self-importance in relation to Wikipedia (see his comments on the Cali talkpage - he thinks he's an Administrator) and appears to make threatening and highly abusive comments to other Users on a regular basis. Does this User really have the right to criticise this, or any other, article, based on his previous editing history?

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.