Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] July 20
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 the article but delete the original versions from the database since they are copyvios. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ibrahim al-Marashi
down the road this guy might very well be notable, but for now delete Babajobu 23:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability. Friday 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Unless a list of his published work appears and can be verified.Hamster Sandwich 04:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep He is a notable figure in the context of the Dodgy Dossier. That makes him a minor somebody, but we have articles on less notable people. I'm going to add a prominent reference to his role in the scandal. --Diderot 09:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The originally posted text was a copyvio from his homepage. I've modified the text enough to no longer be a copyvio, but a round of delete and restore is recommended if the consensus is to not delete, in order to purge the history of copyright violations. --Diderot 10:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment from original nominator...I'm no longer as confident that this should be deleted. When I VfD'd it the article did not state that this guy was the source for the Dodgy Dossier. He's certainly well known as "the PhD guy whose material was cribbed by the Blair administration", if not as nearly as well known by his own name. I don't know, I could really go either way on it now. Babajobu 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep given the new information. Pburka 14:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but delete the edit history with the copyvio material in it. Sooner rather than later before other people start editing it. -- Francs2000 | Talk
14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC) - Keep -- the wub "?/!" 15:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and delete copyvio edit history if possible. Capitalistroadster 16:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Considering his importance in the Dodgy Dossier he should definately remain. His history is essential to an understanding of 'why the dossier was dodgy'.24.215.252.158 17:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability established. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:19, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notability established. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep some have notability thrust upon them, any possible copyvios are a separate issue. PatGallacher 00:49, 2005 July 24 (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.
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ned (Scottish)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1 for the first debate]] Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time, but editors don't want to respect that and insist on keeping the article. It is an identical term to Chav, merely scottish, and it seems that some Scottish patriots are insisting on a separate article even though it is identical in meaning to chav, SqueakBox 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Contrary to the assertions of Squeakbox, 9/7 is by no means a consensus. The previous AfD was closed as a keep by another admin and this decision was changed by Squeakbox two months after the initial closing of the AfD. Although the two terms bear some superficial resemblance, they are by no means the same. The use of "ned" pre-dates "chav" by at least forty years. --GraemeL (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
If the issue is to decide between keep and merge the article shouldn't be discussed here. Speedy keep this, Pilatus 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
(erm, what about Wales and N. Ireland then? Just arrogance ignoring them really, isn't it?)
Wales and NI don't have their own versions of Chav, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is not true. This is the place to discuss it if it needs to be redirected, SqueakBox 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- The deletion policy is here: WP:DP. You want to put merge tags on Chav and Ned (Scottish) and discuss the move on the article talk page. Pilatus 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable term that is used in Scotland as an equivalent to the English Chav and Irish Scallywag. Piecraft 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree. You have reverted in defiancce of a Vfd and now you are claiming we cannot put another vfd on it, SqueakBox 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It was me that reverted the redirect, not Pilatus (who I assume the comment was directed to). Personally, I have no problem with you taking the issue back to AfD. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And I have no problem not making it a redirect but just merging relevant material and deleting. I am not arguing that scally should get the same treatment because Ireland is a separate country. We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It may interest you to know that England and Scotland are also separate countries; They just happen to be part of the same state. Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. --GraemeL (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I am English but I respect the indisputable fact that Scotland is a nation with its own culture. By the way there is no such thing as a "marginal consensus" only a marginal vote, which is not a consensus at all. CalJW 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Why does everything that is distictively Scottish have to be homogeneised and fitted in to an English perspective of the planet? Variety is the spice of life. For another example of this linguistic levellerism, see Talk:Public school (UK).--Mais oui! 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- KeepThis is distinct to Scottish culture, irrespective of similar expressions that may or may not exist in other Britannic cultures.--Nicodemus75 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Neds are particularly and peculiarly Scottish, in the way that Bogans are Australian. There is no such thing as an English Ned. Average Earthman 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's an argument that doesn't work. Consider gasoline and petrol. That "there's no such thing as American petrol and no such thing as English gasoline" doesn't mean that we have two separate articles. See below. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This argument relies on a false analogy. "Gasoline" and "petrol" are synonyms: two words used to refer to the same concepts, albeit in different dialects. On the other hand, "chav", "ned", "bogan", etc. refer to similar -- but not identical -- concepts, because they refer to different subcultures of people. Colin M. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- You're missing the point, and you aren't citing sources for your bald assertion. Again, I point to what I wrote below. Uncle G 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This argument relies on a false analogy. "Gasoline" and "petrol" are synonyms: two words used to refer to the same concepts, albeit in different dialects. On the other hand, "chav", "ned", "bogan", etc. refer to similar -- but not identical -- concepts, because they refer to different subcultures of people. Colin M. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's an argument that doesn't work. Consider gasoline and petrol. That "there's no such thing as American petrol and no such thing as English gasoline" doesn't mean that we have two separate articles. See below. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, shouldn't the article be called Ned (slang) or something more obvious?--nixie 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's best not to. This is not supposed to be a dictionary article about a word, but an encyclopaedia article about a type of people. For a dictionary of slang, see Wiktionary, which has a long list of these regional slang words. (See Wiktionary:chav and what it links to.)
The discussion on whether or not to merge is not a linguistic one, as several editors above have erroneously painted it, but a sociological one. We don't have separate articles where the titles are merely synonyms for the same person/place/concept/event; nor do we have separate articles where it is simply the case that different countries have different words for the same things. (Witness gasoline/petrol, squash/marrow, and so forth.) This is an encyclopaedia, with one article per concept, not a dictionary with one article per word. The important question to answer is not about the words at all, but is whether the two concepts are in fact the same. That's (a) a discussion that belongs on the talk pages not here (since merger of duplicate articles doesn't involve deleting anything) and (b) a question that can only be answered properly by citing sources on the subjects of these concepts.
Unfortunately, citing sources is exactly what is almost never done in chav, charva, townie, bogan, gogan, westies, feral, and their ilk. The articles are perennial original research magnets. (Witness as an example the edit wars over what vehicles certain stereotypes own and drive, and the lack of cited sources on all sides of those disagreements.) These discussions have been, too, with editors using "I am English", "I am from Newcastle", "Xe is not Scottish", and so forth as the sole bases for their arguments — bald assertions that that add no weight at all to the arguments that they supposedly support. I encourage both editors who assert that neds and chavs are the same and editors who assert that neds and chavs are different, to cite sources. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's best not to. This is not supposed to be a dictionary article about a word, but an encyclopaedia article about a type of people. For a dictionary of slang, see Wiktionary, which has a long list of these regional slang words. (See Wiktionary:chav and what it links to.)
- Keep - Neds are a different group altogether. Typical Anglocentricism. Why not merge chav into Ned? Vizjim 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, as nobody at all wants this deleted, including the nom. Slap a disputedmerge tag on both pages, and argue about it on the talk pages in question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Neds, Bogans, Hoons, Westies, Scallywags, Chavs et al. Fight Saxon imperialism! Grutness...wha? 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the ned phenomenon has a depth which appears to be lacking in these chavs come lately, and is well worthy of an article...dave souza 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Neds are distinctly Scottish and predate chavs on the evolutionary timeline by quite some distance. --Cactus.man>Reply 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- merge with Chav. They might be slightly different, but the differences will be best explained by having the two on one article rather than an extensive duplicated comparison on different articles. Thryduulf 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- If anyone needs merging, it is the chav newcomers. Both articles should be kept separate though, as there are enough substantive differences to merit this. Leave wur neds alone ;-) --OorWullie 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Unless of course you want to merge Chav with White Trash because those are identical terms, but Chav is mearly used in the UK rather than in North America --Colin Angus Mackay 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Personally I think the definition of Chav, at least as given in the Wikipedia article, is much less precise, and also that article is subject to a factual accuracy dispute at the present time. That dispute, for me, is enough for me to support keeping the articles separate for now. The term Chav, as used in England, is much more wide-ranging than ned, being used to label anyone who is alleged to demonstrate poor taste in their choice of clothing, motor vehicle or lifestyle, even if that person of royal blood (Prince Harry). OTOH, "Ned" is a much more precisely defined term, covering mainly teenagers who are almost exclusively working class. English teens with a similar lifestyle are only one part of the amorphous Chav grouping. If the Chav article is improved then I might support a merge, but not at the present time. -- Rugxulo 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Un-merge. Definitely distinct from chavs. --Meiers Twins 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I have just read the Chav article again and see that Ned (Scottish) has already been merged, by User:Squeakbox on 24 September ([2]), yet his listing here (25 September) states: "Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time ..." So why the pre-emptive merge without discussion on the relevant talk pages? There is also a discussion starting about this on the Chav talk page. The merge should be undone, pending concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I can't find the previous AfD discussion to check User:Squeakbox's assertions, it just keeps coming back to the current AfD page. Anyone have the correct link to the old page? Cheers. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- The previous discussion is here. Squeakbox did link it at the top of this discussion. It was closed as "keep, strong suggestion to merge and redirect." by admin Dmcdevit·t on July 27. For some reason, Squeakbox decided to overrule that decision two months later. --GraemeL (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I can't find the previous AfD discussion to check User:Squeakbox's assertions, it just keeps coming back to the current AfD page. Anyone have the correct link to the old page? Cheers. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I have just read the Chav article again and see that Ned (Scottish) has already been merged, by User:Squeakbox on 24 September ([2]), yet his listing here (25 September) states: "Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time ..." So why the pre-emptive merge without discussion on the relevant talk pages? There is also a discussion starting about this on the Chav talk page. The merge should be undone, pending concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually I followed the strong suggestion to merge and redirect, and got reverted, which is why we are here. So I did it for the rather obvious reason that that is what was suggetsed in th elast Vfd. Your comment aqbout my overturning the decision is false and makes no sense. I enacted the decision, not overturned it. Or are you suggesting that merging with and redirecting to chav was not a "strong suggestion to merge and redirect." SqueakBox 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and recognise charva as a totally different thing too. How do you reopen these deletion votes? I never got a say on the last one.
>>We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned,<<= BS. Charva is totally different, I suppose in southner terms it is a mixture of a chav and a hoodie (though it does mean more then this). They are certainly not 100% chavs. Charvas also predate chavs by a decade or over, you have only started hearing about chavs this century but charvas have been a common part of the NE for as long as I can remember. >>Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. -<< Again total rubbish. Chav is the derivative of charva, chav is a more mainstream, non-criminal popularization of charva culture with far heavier american aspects mixed in. Just as Scotland has its own culture north east England also has its own culture equally distinct from that of the south. The petrol argument doesn't work. It could apply if we were talking about western petrol and that totally different stuff they used to have in eastern Europe though for petrol/gasaline, two words for the same thing. Definatly not.-Josquius
- Keep and Un-merge. Is it not time we wrapped up this strand and just get on with un-merging the Ned content that was prematurely tagged on to the Chav article?--Mais oui! 10:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as separate article. Notable also for the political fallout when Rosie Kane (Scottish Socialist MSP) said the term should be avoided. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and unmerge. The term is in widespread colloquial use in Scotland,among all classes. It certainly deserves its own article. Its not as if we are going to run out of pages, and it prevents suprprise when someone follows a link and ends up in an apparently unrelated article. --Nantonos 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Time Up
Ding, ding. Time up gentlemen please, drink up now. This discussion has surely run its course. Can some well balanced admin please do the necessary closing up procedure in accordance with the voting. Thank you. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:28, 2 October 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.
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 revert back to the redirect to Thoughtcrime. I will let the page history stay, so if anyone thinks there is anything in the article worth merging with that article, just take a look at the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thought police
Let me state first off that certainly a legitimate, well-cited, balanced and NPOV article could be written on "Thought police". In fact, it was. Then it was merged and redirected to Thoughtcrime. After it had already been merged and redirected for about eight months, someone turned it into a separate article again and rewrote the content to reflect who he believes the modern "thought police" are. This is a POV fork, and it should be deleted without merging. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Per the good point brought up by Christopher below, changing my vote to restore the redirect without saving the forked content. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Just make it back into a redirect. Grace Note 03:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to "Thoughtcrime". Hamster Sandwich 05:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Thoughtcrime. Rhobite 05:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and revert to make it a redirect to Thoughtcrime again. GTBacchus 06:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Re-redirect to Thoughtcrime. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- If it was merged earlier, wouldn't deleting it destroy the history of whatever was merged? Anyway, redirect (didn't really need to be brought to VFD). Christopher Parham (talk) 08:01, 2005 July 20 (UTC)
- Re-redirect to Thoughtcrime, that article has everything we need about the Thought police in Nineteen Eighty-four and whether his predictions have come true. Thryduulf 11:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Thoughtcrime. I do feel that some of this material could perhaps fit into that article, but I say redirect rather than merge because it really should be added thru collaboration with the Thoughtcrime editors (heh), rather than circumventing the process. Dcarrano 12:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Revert to redirect to Thoughtcrime -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Thoughtcrime. Ken 20:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep somehow, even if it takes the recommended redirect. ~ WCFrancis 23:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Re-redirect to thoughtcrime as above. Xoloz 02:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- keep: While deleting this article may be a dream come true for deletionists, but a dark moment for the Wikipedia's institutional memory. The fact that a series of VfD proposals, for Moral compass, Elliott Valenstein and this article, suddenly arose, after repudiation of protracted efforts to delete the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health Wikilink from the Mind control article, brings into doubt the propriety of these proposed VfDs. Ombudsman 03:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect as appriopriate like others suggest (Oh noes! Groupthink!) Gamera2 00:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Thoughtcrime. Simple enough. --Calton | Talk 01:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect overlapping & new content with Thoughtcrime | Cwolfsheep 15:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, what content do you see in the article that deserves merging? I think Dcarrano makes a good point, that whatever content is in Thought police that isn't in Thoughtcrime was not produced by collaboration with other editors but by the exact opposite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Thoughtcrime as my hive-mind insists. brenneman(t)(c) 03:46, 27 July 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.
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. Woohookitty 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Wikigames
Wikipedia is not a free webhosting provider. This page proposes an entire wikigames-subproject. It's bad enough that we tolerate these things in the sandbox. Games can be played on http://games.wikicities.com/ which has specific wikigame-extensions; even if such a project was actually to be proposed as part of Wikimedia (whose mission is to distribute free knowledge and which is funded by donations given by people who expect that we use their money as such), it would belong on m:Proposals for new projects, not in the Wikipedia: namespace of the English Wikipedia. Note that there's also an edit war on this page with SDSUPinoy preferring this version. The page also nicely demonstrates the problem with wikigames; it was created by a user who has been doing nothing but playing and creating them, not ever contributing to the actual encyclopedia. It is often alleged that games on Wikipedia reduce wikistress. Given the record so far, I have doubts about that. --Eloquence* 02:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. SDSUPinoy's version is misleading in suggesting this forms a demonstration wiki, which it does not. The page only serves to promote games that were previously "hidden" in the sandbox. This gives too much credibility to a set of pages that ought to have been deleted, and gives the impression that anyone can set up a test wiki within Wikipedia, over-riding the proposals for new projects policy. Angela. 02:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Their introduction more or less admits that this project is contrary to Wikipedia policy. --malathion talk 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not project-related. (Just to clarify, these are the same games listed on WP:FUN) Gazpacho 04:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Beland 04:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per User:Angela. JamesBurns 09:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete jamesgibbon 12:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete pointless page -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep They are actually quite fun, they've got a whole league going there on the chess page, stop being so boring. --Differentgravy 20:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - I like it. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. If I liked sucking your blood, would I be entitled to do so? This Wikigames nonsense is nothing less than parasitism and should be quashed as soon as possible. Binadot 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, but if you made a game about such a scenario on allowed wikipedia editors to play said game it'd be cool --Irishpunktom\talk 23:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Eloquence. Strong nomination thoroughly convinced me. Xoloz 02:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, the database for this Wikipedia fits in two CD-Rs and a few spare floppies. The onus of a page like this on the Wikimedia foundation is negligible. Almafeta 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Eloquence and Angela. -Sean Curtin 02:51, July 25, 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.
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 --Allen3 talk 11:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Pakaran/Wikipedian political entities
Useless, too cluttered, and nonsense. User:Pakaran didn't even make this page; it was made by an anon. I say delete! - 68.72.128.19 04:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It could be that User:Pakaran was the anon. I'm not inclined to delete it until Pakaran denies (or confirms) this. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - 68.23.46.106 20:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - 69.216.232.38 23:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - 68.72.113.117 21:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This vfd was started on April, yet as May ends, no resolution has been decided upon. - 68.251.209.191 23:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't make that page. Anons have been making it based on some of my user subpages like User:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia but I wouldn't miss the page in question. Nor am I asking for it to be deleted; I basically don't care. Pakaran 11:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Abstain
Delete- 68.23.111.5 04:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Delete - 68.72.129.171 03:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - 68.255.37.206 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Normally I wouldn't vote to delete a userpage, but since Pakaran doesn't even care himself, there really isn't much point keeping it. Cyclone49 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- (Abstain) Comment: good grief. I've never seen so many anon votes. sockpuppet city. Kingdom of Wikipedia must be an IP shelter. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Have you ever poked an ants' nest with a stick and watched all the ants come scurrying out to see what the problem is? I wonder what the equivalent is for sockpuppets? -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Have you ever poked an ants' nest with a stick and watched all the ants come scurrying out to see what the problem is? I wonder what the equivalent is for sockpuppets? -- Francs2000 | Talk
- Delete - just a load of red links that the user admits to not creating, thus the "user-page sanctity" gentlemen's agreement of Wikipedia is null and void, imo -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- How about just redirecting it to User:Pakaran/Kingdom of Wikipedia ? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete. This is just a lot of made-up BS. Why are inclusionists "liberal" and deletionists "conservative"? Where did all these names come from anyway? Somebody must have just made them up. The last thing we need is another index of useless red-linked articles that will never be created. Binadot 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete pointless red-link farm. JamesBurns 07:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Radiant_>|< 12:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What the heck are we losing? We could just as well title this page "List of political terms followed by 'of Wikipedia' just for the heck of it." Almafeta 02:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - if Pakaran will not miss the article and does not care about it's fate, what harm is there to delete the page? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:53, 22 July 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.
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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Religious persecution by Muslims
Fork of Persecution of non-Muslims to avoid get around VFD of that article. Author of the article is pushing an anti-Islam POV on numerous articles. ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) User:-Ril-
This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. --Germen is not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Update: I have added a discussion[7]. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Update: This VfD seems to be an attempt to support the RfC [8] complaint against me: one of the charges which are levelled against me is the "spurious" creation of articles. Note that it is not Wikipedia policy to forbid the creation of articles and that this article describes a real-world and proven phenomenon. Note that the ones who sponsor the VfD (like Ril and Axon) support a delete vote just for one reason: the supposed bad-faith of undersigned. The propable reason is my supposed anti-islam bias. --Germen 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ~~~~ 07:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this user User:-Ril- actively pushes for a RfC for me. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the above statement is mildly inaccurate. I co-signed an RFC that was also co-signed by a large number of other users disturbed by Germen's editing behaviour. For those that are interested, the RFC is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Germen ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note that one of the accusations in aforementioned RfC is the spurious creation of articles, as manifest by the frequent VfD votes on them. These VfD votes originate from users with a known pro-Islam bias, e.g. Irishpunktom, which propably mobilize supporters in order to win the vote. So the VfD accusation can be seen as an example of blaming the victim in the totalitarian tradition. --Germen 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the above statement is mildly inaccurate. I co-signed an RFC that was also co-signed by a large number of other users disturbed by Germen's editing behaviour. For those that are interested, the RFC is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Germen ~~~~ 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Note that this user User:-Ril- actively pushes for a RfC for me. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I think if you change the word "By" (in the title and some of the sub-sections) to the word "OF" this article makes alot more sense. The author seems to be writing in terms of persecution OF Muslims. I read the article and much of its information seems to be covered in the blue links I followed. Perhaps some of this material should be Re-Directed or Merged with the existing material. I think an edit would help this page. A historical record of the persecution of any population certainly warrants notable topic status, and the tone of this one seems largely historical rather than an opinion piece. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete There is already a Persecution of Muslims article, this page is yet another opportunity for Germen to spread his anti-muslim propaganda (he's already created numerous pester pages that have all been deleted through lengthy VfD). I see no reason not to cover the same subject matter in the Islam article. Also I'm not sure that religious persecution can be used in this sense: when I hear the term I generally think of people being persecuted for their religion, not people being persecuted because of religion. Axon 09:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Persecution OF muslims is completely different of persecution BY Muslims. Failing to see this difference is symptomatic for user:Axon. I did cite verifiable sources, so what I wrote cannot be classified as biased anti-Muslim propaganda. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I was referring to Hamster Sandwich's remarks. Your continued attempts to contradict votes and harrass voters here and on other VfDs are not welcommed. If nothing else but for the sake of your own arguments, please desist. Axon 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Legitimate comments on factual inaccurate statements cannot be classified as harassment. Your continued argumentum ad hominem attacks and logical inaccuracies are not welcomed. --Germen 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).
- You haven't actually highlighted any "factual inaccuracies" other than mis-reading my remarks. Your continued attempts to shout down opposing votes is not doing you any favors or making people more inclined to vote in your favor. Axon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- As I said, responding to remarks is a valid discussion practice and cannot be considered harassment. Thus your remarks are logically inacurate. Note that your continued attempts to shout down opposing voices are not doing you any favours of making people motre inclined to vote in your favour, for as far that matters. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so arguments are more important than votes. --Germen 13:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- You haven't actually highlighted any "factual inaccuracies" other than mis-reading my remarks. Your continued attempts to shout down opposing votes is not doing you any favors or making people more inclined to vote in your favor. Axon 13:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Legitimate comments on factual inaccurate statements cannot be classified as harassment. Your continued argumentum ad hominem attacks and logical inaccuracies are not welcomed. --Germen 12:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC).
- I was referring to Hamster Sandwich's remarks. Your continued attempts to contradict votes and harrass voters here and on other VfDs are not welcommed. If nothing else but for the sake of your own arguments, please desist. Axon 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Persecution of Muslims is not the same as Religious persecution by Muslims. In fact, it is totally different, making yours a moot point. I don't see how you can miss this (or expect anyone to fall for it). Furthermore, I would think that more people were persecuted for not being of a certain religion, than for being of a certain religion, which in my opinion makes this article more relevant than Persecution of Muslims. I am not sure what you're trying to pull here, but I don't like it. --Dv 14:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Persecution OF muslims is completely different of persecution BY Muslims. Failing to see this difference is symptomatic for user:Axon. I did cite verifiable sources, so what I wrote cannot be classified as biased anti-Muslim propaganda. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Vote pending result of VFD on Religious Persecution by Jews - This article was created first by Germen, and I, apparently very unwisely, that a "Religious Persecution by..." series to be a good idea. I had planned on including every major World Religion and Atheists (Communists, and perhaps French Revolutionaries, etc). However all in-all out, and if the jewish one goes I'll nominate Religious persecution by Christians too.
--Irishpunktom\talk 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Finally I agree with Irishpunktom on something. The idea of "persecutions by the followers of religion XXX" is unwise. Don't mix fanaticism, ideology, politics, greed, etc. with religion (one's relationship with god). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, we should focus on the religious reasons for persecution others. Hence the title, Religious persecution by Muslims. We try in the article. --Germen 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV fork by problem user. Dcarrano 10:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Also "problem users" can suggest useful articles. Also, it is not proven I am a problem user. A decision on deletion should be taken by checking the article on its merits (or lack thereof), not by judging by person. --Germen 12:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Main problem with the precursor of this article was its title. The title has been changed to the more accurate "Religious persecution by Muslims", which is a valid entity. --Germen 12:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Argumentum ad hominem. This article is neutral, as manifested by the lack of POV complaints. I am not the only contributor to this article. When persecution of muslims is a legitimate article, why Religious persecution by muslims is not? Note that no objective reasons have been stated to delete this article. All attempts seem to focus on my supposed bad faith. --Germen 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Update: I have added a discussion. --Germen 13:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all viruses of the mind must persecute other viruses in their struggle for existence (unfortunately). Dunc|☺ 13:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- the only virus of the mind is the one that dismisses all other metaphysical belief systems as viral, and rather arrogantly claims a monopoly on truth. christians, muslims, jews, hindus, and atheists have all proven themselves prone to this virus from time to time. Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason I supported keeping the Religious persecution by Jews, by Christians, by atheists, and other articles in what could have been a great series. Unfortunately, the "How dare you speak ill of my people?!" brigades in each community will never let these articles survive. Too bad. Wikipedia can still be a good resource for noncontroversial topics. It's just not mature of enough for sensitive ones. Babajobu 13:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see why this should not be documented. Dv 13:59, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Note, this user has less than 50 edits to his name[9]. Axon 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- And? Dv 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:SOCK. Axon 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have and I am thus far still missing your point. Please elaborate. Dv 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- For the purposes of voting, editors with less than 100/500 (can't remember which) or so edits can be considered sock puppets. This should be referenced in the sock puppets page. Axon 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Axon, I have checked Dv's edits and he does not seem a sock puppet to me, but rather a new user which has contributed to several useful articles, e.g. about programming languages. It is Wikiquette not to bite newcomers. --Germen 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- And whose sock-puppet am I? Dv 16:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Axon, agressive attacks on other users will not favour your case. (sic) --Germen 15:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have and I am thus far still missing your point. Please elaborate. Dv 14:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:SOCK. Axon 14:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- And? Dv 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Note, this user has less than 50 edits to his name[9]. Axon 14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unencyclopedic, POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? Also: persecution BY muslims does not qualify as a fork of persecution OF Muslims, it is a completely different subject. --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, there're similar articles on other religions, and I dare someone to claim that there isn't pertinent information for this article's expansion. Shem(talk) 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. But it would be nice if the creators of these articles covered that pertinent information from the start. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
WeakKeep. Valid topic butpoorly written andobviously incomplete. It covers too littleand takes too long to cover it. On the other hand it is well organized and opens the door to better. --EMS | Talk 15:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)- I have amended my vote as noted above in response to the edits by Hamster Sandwich. The article is now much more focussed and useful. It still needs a lot more research and work. However, it is easier for that to be done when the aritcle is present than when it is not. Also, I for one would like to see Religious persecution by Jews done properly and in keep-able fashion (as is not currently the case, even with my own edits). A page such as this may help to inspire and guide those who can do a good job with that one. --EMS | Talk 01:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and merge in Persecution_of_non-Muslims. Also keep other articles in this series. the wub "?/!" 15:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but with the reservation that we should take a decision that the persecution by... articles should either all stay or all go. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- (user has less than 50 edits) Keep Unlike ceratin other articles created by IrishPunkTom as a smokescreen for religious bigotry, this article started out well researched and well sourced, and shows real potential to be a proper and NPOV article dealing with the religious persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim lands and Muslim religious doctrines.Existentializer 16:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why the constant Personal Abuse toward me? I've only seen your name on the two VFD's before. Why is Religious persecution by Jews considered "religious bigotry", yet Religious persecution by Muslims "a proper and NPOV article". If you know so much about the history of the Jews, can't you help NPOV of the Jewish one? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not involved in any "personal abuse" towards you. I do however, after reading the versions of the other two articles which you created and after reviewing your talk page and your edit history, feel that you have a strong enough bias and that you are not behaving within Wikipedia policy. The two pages you have created are violations of NPOV and WP:POINT as referenced by Jayjg, while this article deals with something that is a very REAL phenomenon today as well as in the past. Existentializer 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I absolutely reject the logic behind this vote. I worked on this article much more than I did on the other "Persecution by..." articles, but there is absolutely no way you can support keeping this one and dismiss the others as "religious bigotry". Either you accept the general concept of articles covering persecution committed by particular religious groups, or you don't. To accept one such article and reject others is, ironically, a pretty clearcut case of "religious bigotry". Babajobu 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am not involved in any "personal abuse" towards you. I do however, after reading the versions of the other two articles which you created and after reviewing your talk page and your edit history, feel that you have a strong enough bias and that you are not behaving within Wikipedia policy. The two pages you have created are violations of NPOV and WP:POINT as referenced by Jayjg, while this article deals with something that is a very REAL phenomenon today as well as in the past. Existentializer 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why the constant Personal Abuse toward me? I've only seen your name on the two VFD's before. Why is Religious persecution by Jews considered "religious bigotry", yet Religious persecution by Muslims "a proper and NPOV article". If you know so much about the history of the Jews, can't you help NPOV of the Jewish one? --Irishpunktom\talk 17:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I have a feeling that if we delete one and we keep another it will mess up the whole point of the religious persecution series.Heraclius 17:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but I don't really see any true persecution in the article, other than the bit on Iraq in the 1940's. Needs better organization. --Bayyoc 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unencyclopedic POV magnet. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, can you motivate why this article is unencyclopedic and POV? --Germen 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. There is religious persecution by people from all walks of life. I initially wanted to vote keep, but it's highly unnecessary, IMO. --Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but only the Koran is replete with verses like 5:51 in the mix. Religious persecution under Islam is a matter of state policy, which begs a significant distinction and is worthy if note and NPOV study.Existentializer 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but this article is begging for controversy and vandalism. If there were a way to possibly clean this up to deter as much controversy as possible... I change my vote to abstain. Thorns Among Our Leaves 18:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- To say that ONLY the Koran makes statements like 5:51 is a generalization and is not accurate. What did Jesus mean when he said "If you are not with me, then you are against me"? Have you read of the Israelite's campaigns against their neighbors? Making statements like "only the Koran" suggest that you have some beef against Muslems, thus diluting the arguement to keep the article, which I support as long as it is historically accurate.--Bayyoc 19:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, the wonderful mistranslation and taking out of context. Try this link with regard to that verse; the Vulgate version is even better but you have to be able to read Latin. And just FYI, the translation of that verse is HEAVILY debated since the same verse in Mark reads the other way: "For whoever is not against us is on our side." On the other hand, the Koran verse stands without question in its own context.Existentializer 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Precisely my point! This article is a lightning rod for controversy. If it is to be kept, there surely has to be some way to reduce this factor to avoid silly squabbling like this. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fine. I admit I was too lazy to look the verse up, but my paraphrase isn't that far off and the context seems the same. The point of both 5:51 and Jesus' statement is that there is only one way to salvation and, frankly, I don't see the problem with 5:51 in that it reserves the punishment of sinners to Allah. Not one of the three religions is innocent of bloodshed and if you have articles about Christian and Jewish attrocities, then you are obligated to examine Islam as well. If there ever were Christian, Jewish, or Muslem attrocities against other religions (and there certainly were), you are obligated to to examine them. The "Persecution by..." series seems legitimate. If the content of the articles needs cleaned up, then clean them up, but I don't see how you can justify deleting them just because someone might get offended by them.--Bayyoc 19:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, the wonderful mistranslation and taking out of context. Try this link with regard to that verse; the Vulgate version is even better but you have to be able to read Latin. And just FYI, the translation of that verse is HEAVILY debated since the same verse in Mark reads the other way: "For whoever is not against us is on our side." On the other hand, the Koran verse stands without question in its own context.Existentializer 19:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but only the Koran is replete with verses like 5:51 in the mix. Religious persecution under Islam is a matter of state policy, which begs a significant distinction and is worthy if note and NPOV study.Existentializer 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as I gave, for deleting "Religious persecution by Jews." I will jus copypast those reasons here: "The name of the article is not encyclopedic. Something like: "Religious persecution in Israel" could get an entry, but for sure not this. It is simply a generalization of an ethnic group, and the support of a POV, the POV being that, an ethnic group is more than a social construct, all this, in the articles name alone. I think there should be appropriate rules here in Wikipedia, on what is an encyclopedic entry, this will spare us all the trouble of having to vote the deletion of articles that should not exist in the first place. This sort of article will only get answered by similar articles(I just hope they don't already exist), which the subject, and probably the aim, will be generalization. There is a distinction between directly criticizing a group of people, and criticizing an aspect... If I write an article like: "Religious persecution under king David's reign" or something such, I could write an encyclopedic article. I could of course, as well, write something like: "Religious persecution under Judaism." While this seems to be about the same thing as the article voted for deletion, it is not. In the same token, I could write an article, like; "Religious persecution under Islam." This will be an encyclopedic name, but not: "Religious persecutions by Muslims," or even more direct: "Religious persecution by Arabs" (I'm making the comparison, because being a "Jew," is not only being part of a religion, but as includes the ethnic group.) But I could write: "Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes." It is permitted to write about an aspect, or a system, etc. but not to generalize directly. Guilt by association is simply not encyclopedic. One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization. Having said all this, I think that the problem is not only with the name, but what the name could permit to write in the article, in this cases. We can not write with such a subject(the name of the article/subject), a real NPOV article, so it will be unwiki, and it's existence will inevitably lead to failure." Fadix (My Talk) 20:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Change vote: Keep, but change the name of the article: This article is much more worked around than the other, and a name like: "Religious persecution under Islamic rules" would rightly fit the content of the article. Fadix (My Talk) 21:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- You say: One way of knowing if a name for an article like this is encyclopedic, is to wonder if when using the name to criticize, it would be considered as a generalization, but you suggest that Religious persecutions under Arabic regimes would be a valid title, which is inconsistent because the latter title is also a generalisation. You fail to give a reason why such generalisations should be avoided. Obviously, the article with a title like Religious persecution by Muslims does not imply that all muslims persecute all the time, merely that at some point in time group(s) was(were) persecuted by Muslims in a manner which warrants an encyclopedic article. Quite frankly, I don't understand the point you are trying to make I suspect that there is none. -Dv 20:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- keep please Yuckfoo 17:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong KEEP I just applied an edit to the article. I hope it provides some clarity and more concise thought than the original. I was initially confused by the title (I thought the article was dealing with issues concerning the persection OF Muslims) but after reading it several times and also the comments here I applied an extensive edit to it. It lacks some information concerning internacine persecution of various Muslim factions. I only hope it might be helpful in deciding the issue. And to illustrate that constructive critisism is usually helpful in expanding the Wikipedia, whereas derision and obfuscation of the issue almost never is. Hamster Sandwich 00:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 01:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Volunteers welcomed. --Germen 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- weak Keep per my vote in Persecution by Jews. Together with DJ Clayworth, I agree that these should all stay or all go. Until policy is sorted out, I default to keeping all articles in this series. Xoloz 03:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Revolución 04:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Revolucion has voted "delete" on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews; on the other hand, he has eagerly promised to expand the Religious persecution by Christians article. I agree that the latter could have been a great article and should have been expanded, but I question the motivation of a bourgeois playtime "revolutionary" who thinks only one religious group can commit religious persecution. I would discount this vote as bad faith. Babajobu 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: YOU MAY NOT DISCOUNT A VOTE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE WHAT YOU THINK THE VOTERS REASONS TO BE. ~~~~ 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: A vote without a stated reason is not valid as per Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Germen 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT: YOU MAY NOT DISCOUNT A VOTE JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE WHAT YOU THINK THE VOTERS REASONS TO BE. ~~~~ 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are already POV OR disasters. WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones. Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group. Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities. If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month. Tomer TALK 16:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Very strong keep because religious intolerance is a real and important phenomenon, both past and present. It cannot be properly studied just focusing on victims, because then you lose sight of its causes. Moreover, the dynamics of religious persecution (with its ultimate aim of forced conversion) has nothing to do with etnicity, and is already touched upon, very briefily, in the article on Coercion. So the article must be properly expanded, not deleted,This applies to the whole series of "persecution by" articles: --Mario 16:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Then why not just have the article religious intolerance than religious persecution by X. Note that this article is the most extensive of the series, the series being created to allow this article's existence, and to go "oh, look, its the muslims who are the worst", by having the islamic-related article the largest. ~~~~ 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, that should be the final solution. Just one article with an overview section (dedicated to general forms of intolerance: the "how's") and then specialised historical sections on "intolerance by whom, where and when". However this requires putting together historical knowledge from widely different fields. So the practical idea is perhaps first to develop the articles separately and then (when some balance is reached) to merge them: --Mario
- Then why not just have the article religious intolerance than religious persecution by X. Note that this article is the most extensive of the series, the series being created to allow this article's existence, and to go "oh, look, its the muslims who are the worst", by having the islamic-related article the largest. ~~~~ 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. VFD votes are usually based on the article's potential, not its current state. -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I don't think this article (or the other 2) has much potential, as the title alone assumes Muslims (or Jews or Christians) are monolithic in their (mis)behavior. Much of the persecutions that have happened are not even necessarily related to religion, nor to all adherents of the religion en masse. I also believe much of the content in all three of these articles is already addressed (or should be addressed) elsewhere in Wikipedia in more specific and balanced contexts. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. VFD votes are usually based on the article's potential, not its current state. -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 talk 01:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. How can historical fact be POV? -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- The historical fact itself is not POV, it's the way it's framed. Articles titled "religious persecution *of* (fill in group here)" are okay, but "religious persecution *by* (fill in group here)" carries an implicit implication that Muslims, Jews, or Christians as a whole are responsible for persecution (as opposed to individuals who may also happen to be Muslims, Jews, or Christians), or that there is something systemic in the religions that leads to them persecuting others. That's implicitly promoting a POV against all three religions. Kaibabsquirrel 23:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. How can historical fact be POV? -Dv 04:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Almafeta 02:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time. In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis. But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once. This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page. Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true. Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
- Delete crazyeddie 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. BlankVerse ∅ 11:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Incognito 17:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Deletethis and all of the "persecution by (blank)" until a NPOV article can be written EdwinHJ | Talk 17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- #REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as unsalvageable POV magnet. - Mustafaa 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- ...together with Religious persecution by Christians and Religious persecution by Jews, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment. But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic because it provides an opportunity to address issues specific to persecution by muslims. amazing how ad hominem wikipedians get in their vfd's. there should be a rule. Ungtss 22:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is becoming ridiculous. LokiCT 22:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- LokiCT (talk · contribs)'s 14th edit, made 36 minutes after his/her first edit. Voted "Keep" on VfD for Religious persecution by Jews. HKT talk 23:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles.--DNicholls 02:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete *Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV (as Mustafaa said), but that is not the only reason to delete. The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole? Is all of history covered? Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims? Are the July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks persecution by radical Islamists against non-Muslims? The articles do not have a clear definition, and are likely to be POV disasters that are not informative. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- I think we must concentrate on the reasons of persecution. If this reasons are religious, so is the persecution. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
) 14:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- German, how do we know whether the reasons are religious? How would you define the examples above? In one case it was a group of Christians slaughtering Jews for the crime of being Jews, but it was not explicitly religiously motivated. In the next case, it was a lone crazy Jew who killed Muslims because of their religion, but did not represent a wider religious group. In the final case, Islamists were attacking others for religious reasons, but it is not clear whether the attack was persecution or not. The issue is that these articles seem destined to turn into a dumping ground for a list of everything that anyone of that religious affiliation has ever done wrong. Until someone defines the article series better, and what religious persecution is (as opposed to nationalist persecution, etc.), I would strongly urge to delete. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- GoodOldPolonius, I think it is not so difficult to find that out. If the perpetrators of persecution cite religious sources and religious reasons and those reasons are supported by theological evidence, we safely can assume it is religious persecution. Exactly because of that reason I added a section "Theological justification for/against persecution" in order to make this clear. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- That begs the question - lots of people appeal to religious motives, others do not cite religious reasons, but their actions are clearly religiously motivated. And what "religious persection" is remains anyone's guess. A good way to start would be for you to catagorize the three examples I gave as religious persecution or not. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Difficult indeed, Goodoldpolonius. Because people consider a religion to be their supreme frame of reference, it would be more logical for someone to attribute non-religious violence to religion than the opposite (unless it is all part of a propaganda war, in which it would be opposite in order to prevent defamation of the own religion). It is quite impossible to look into the perpetrators brain, so we have just their words and actions available as a reference. And the validity of the religious motives they gave.
- As per your three examples-
- That begs the question - lots of people appeal to religious motives, others do not cite religious reasons, but their actions are clearly religiously motivated. And what "religious persection" is remains anyone's guess. A good way to start would be for you to catagorize the three examples I gave as religious persecution or not. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- GoodOldPolonius, I think it is not so difficult to find that out. If the perpetrators of persecution cite religious sources and religious reasons and those reasons are supported by theological evidence, we safely can assume it is religious persecution. Exactly because of that reason I added a section "Theological justification for/against persecution" in order to make this clear. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- German, how do we know whether the reasons are religious? How would you define the examples above? In one case it was a group of Christians slaughtering Jews for the crime of being Jews, but it was not explicitly religiously motivated. In the next case, it was a lone crazy Jew who killed Muslims because of their religion, but did not represent a wider religious group. In the final case, Islamists were attacking others for religious reasons, but it is not clear whether the attack was persecution or not. The issue is that these articles seem destined to turn into a dumping ground for a list of everything that anyone of that religious affiliation has ever done wrong. Until someone defines the article series better, and what religious persecution is (as opposed to nationalist persecution, etc.), I would strongly urge to delete. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think we must concentrate on the reasons of persecution. If this reasons are religious, so is the persecution. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Christians killing a Jew for being a Jew per se are not acting per religious reasons, as there are no reasons in the Bible to kill Jews, except for the supposed responsability of the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. This, however, contradicts the Christian dogma that Jesus died for all sins, including the sins of the Jewish perpetrators and the fact that according to the canonical Gospels Jesus asked for forgiveness for the ones who persecuted him. It can be cited as a (misguided) religious motivation, however.
- The lone Jew who kills Muslims because of their religion can act because of religious reasons or not, I do not know enough about Talmud and other contemporary Jewish writings. The Tenach does not mention Islam, so cannot be used as a source for anti-Muslim violence. Only when Muslims are considered to be enemies of the people of Israel (as some right-wing Zionist groups do) there exists a religious reason for killing them as far as I understand Judaism.
- The Sharm el-Sheikh attacks are partially motivated by religious reasons because of the suicide bomber element. A secular terrorist will attribute more value to hios life and will not expect a reward by God for his act (thus will choose another method of terrorism, like remote-control), while a religiously miotivated terrorist will and therefore prefers suicide as a sure means for achieving Paradise. There are some theories, however, that the harsh treatment by the Mukhabarat of Sinai Bedouins has motivated the killers. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Now you have me truly baffled (leaving aside the Jews killed Jesus bit which seems to be in your first response). Christian persecutions of a group is not religious persecutions unless the source documents of Christianity demand that that group be persecuted? So attacks on witches are religious persecution because of the commandment against witches, but the Spanish Inquisition and blood libels are not, because there is no commandment to persecute Jews? I am not even sure what your definition is, but it seems to require at the very least knowing the motivation of the persecution (which is often unclear) and a universal interpretation of each religion (which is not possible). Motivations for persecutions against other religions are usually multicausal, so how would you decide what is religiously motivated and what is not? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Right, you summarize it well. Note, however, that everything which violates the Highest Commandment as per Jesus, is in violation of Christian teachings. So persecuting witches is wrong, but Christianity commands them to be banned from a church or other religious group of Christians. However, agreed to some extent: religiously motivated persecution can still be a violation of the teachings of that religion. The persecution then results from a twisted interpretation of the religion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Re Witches, the First Synod of Patrick pronounced excommunication on any who would persecute a Witch (they also declared witches harmless) see Celtic Christianity --ClemMcGann 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- OK, this I didn't know. Thanks! --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- German - so I can get this right: the Spanish Inquisition, burnings for false Host desecration charges, and Blood libel are not religious persections by Christians? This definitely seems like a Catch-22, if Christians persecute anyone then they are not behaving like Christians, and therefore there is no Christian persection. What would qualify in your point of view? And how do you privellage one interpretation or another? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- The persecutions of Jews because of the host libel are indeed persecutions and they were committed by Roman-Catholic Christians. It seems like a kind of cooked-up story to motivate antisemitism. It can be mentioned in the Persecution by Christians article I guess. The blood libel is I think old plain antisemitism. This myth surfaces at many places, most recently in Saudi Arabia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- The persecutions of Jews because of the host libel are indeed persecutions and they were committed by Roman-Catholic Christians. It seems like a kind of cooked-up story to motivate antisemitism. It can be mentioned in the Persecution by Christians article I guess. The blood libel is I think old plain antisemitism. This myth surfaces at many places, most recently in Saudi Arabia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- OK, this I didn't know. Thanks! --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Re Witches, the First Synod of Patrick pronounced excommunication on any who would persecute a Witch (they also declared witches harmless) see Celtic Christianity --ClemMcGann 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Right, you summarize it well. Note, however, that everything which violates the Highest Commandment as per Jesus, is in violation of Christian teachings. So persecuting witches is wrong, but Christianity commands them to be banned from a church or other religious group of Christians. However, agreed to some extent: religiously motivated persecution can still be a violation of the teachings of that religion. The persecution then results from a twisted interpretation of the religion. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Now you have me truly baffled (leaving aside the Jews killed Jesus bit which seems to be in your first response). Christian persecutions of a group is not religious persecutions unless the source documents of Christianity demand that that group be persecuted? So attacks on witches are religious persecution because of the commandment against witches, but the Spanish Inquisition and blood libels are not, because there is no commandment to persecute Jews? I am not even sure what your definition is, but it seems to require at the very least knowing the motivation of the persecution (which is often unclear) and a universal interpretation of each religion (which is not possible). Motivations for persecutions against other religions are usually multicausal, so how would you decide what is religiously motivated and what is not? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Move or merge this isn't about religious persecution by Muslims as about Muslim attitudes to other groups. See my comments in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. --jnothman talk 15:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not so. I described Muhammad's actions towards non-Muslims because they are the theological basis vor Islam's attitude towards non-Muslims, hence essential for u8nderstanding religious persecution by Muslims.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- But then, as you say, the purpose for giving this information is to explore their attitude, and not their persecution as such. This whole collection of articles should be exploring the attitudes of x to non-x's, and only looking at their acts of persecution in this context, because the acts of persecution cannot fairly be ascribed to the religious (or anti-religious) movement as a whole! But their attitudes can be discussed fairly. --jnothman talk 04:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not so. I described Muhammad's actions towards non-Muslims because they are the theological basis vor Islam's attitude towards non-Muslims, hence essential for u8nderstanding religious persecution by Muslims.--Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these. The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great. Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages. AndyCapp 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as per MPerel and Mustafaa, along with the rest of the ill-advised series.Palmiro 19:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, controversial, but important series Salsb 00:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this is an important part of a coherent series of articles on religious persecution. --Zeno of Elea 14:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and improve - we all have an 'edit button'--ClemMcGann 08:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. No idea why this and the others were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Mu'tazilites, or by early Hanafis or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said it's a POV magnet and there is no persecution by Muslims as a whole entity, but different groups and schools of thought have persecuted different things, there is no doubt in that. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Muslim groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable because at that level this can be dealt with in a way that is sane and not blanketing saying Qur'an quotes for and against persecution. Because, it is obvious that different groups have interpretted those verses differently. gren 16:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Gren, according to what you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion between Muslims themselves whether persecution is allowed or not and which incarnations of persecution are allowed or recommended. So, exposing the reasons why Muslims persecute others and what is the textual evidence which allows or contradicts persecution seems to be of encyclopedic interest. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- There is no Islamic ruling on persecution different Muslims have interpretted it in different ways. Also it is impossible to tell teh difference between political / power / and religious motivations. While I have no problem reporting what motivations can be cited for a Muslim group's persecution of another I think that what you want is exactly why this article should not stand as it does now. There is no answer that will give you the magical key to why some Muslims do what they do. And citing the Qur'an without references because an editor feels they justify persecution is original research... and that is precisely what is to be avoided. gren 16:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Gren, exacty for that reason I have added the Theological reasons section, in ortderr to differentiate. OK, if you think sources are lacking, then sources should be added. There are many articles which lack sources. Do you think all those articles should go? --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Gren, exacty for that reason I have added the Theological reasons section, in ortderr to differentiate. OK, if you think sources are lacking, then sources should be added. There are many articles which lack sources. Do you think all those articles should go? --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- There is no Islamic ruling on persecution different Muslims have interpretted it in different ways. Also it is impossible to tell teh difference between political / power / and religious motivations. While I have no problem reporting what motivations can be cited for a Muslim group's persecution of another I think that what you want is exactly why this article should not stand as it does now. There is no answer that will give you the magical key to why some Muslims do what they do. And citing the Qur'an without references because an editor feels they justify persecution is original research... and that is precisely what is to be avoided. gren 16:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Gren, according to what you say, there seems to be a lot of confusion between Muslims themselves whether persecution is allowed or not and which incarnations of persecution are allowed or recommended. So, exposing the reasons why Muslims persecute others and what is the textual evidence which allows or contradicts persecution seems to be of encyclopedic interest. --Germen (Talk | Contribs
- Delete, article is created for anti-Islam agenda. --Vsion 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not. (Dv)
- Then how come, the article is not listed as POV? Persecution of Muslims can be claimed likewise to promote a pro-Islam agenda, but has been retained anyhow. I think this two articles will counterbalance each other and provide Muslims and non-Muslims alike with reliable information, thus reducing misunderstandings. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- For proof of anti-Islam agenda, see [10]. You have confessed to it yourself. There's really nothing more to say. -- Vsion 09:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't prove that this article has an anti-Islam agenda. It proves that it is his opinion that the world would be better off without Islam. There's no rule that one has to be indifferent to the issue as long as one is NPOV. Indeed, how would Nazism have been written if that were true? (Dv)
- At the same article you can read why I believe a NPOV is sufficient to state my point, because I have objective reasons for this belief. If you think the Religious Persecution by Muslims article is biased, feel free to remove the bias and correct factual inaccuracies, but cite your sources. Censorship of free speech and preferring "respect" above facts is not a desired encyclopedic approach. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Haha... aren't you now giving yourself away for using sock puppets for double voting? :D --Vsion 10:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You better not be implying that I'm a sock-puppet or I shall be very angry
- Dv, are you saying you are not a sock-puppet of Germen? -- Vsion 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hello Vsion and welcome to en.wikipedia where a basic proficiency with the English language is assumed. Reasoning skills are optional, and often frowned upon, however.
- I don't know what Dv means but I am a different person (i.e. physical human entity, so clear?) than he is. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Dv, are you saying you are not a sock-puppet of Germen? -- Vsion 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am not a clone of user:Dv but a separate user, if that is your point. It is not necessary to employ this kind of tactics to prove my point. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm amused by your "tactics", and the attempt of "minor insult" through a proxy (which is pathetic, btw) :D Vsion 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- How would you like this proxy to punch you in the face? Btw I'm glad you quit using bold to add dramatic effect to your comments.
- I'm amused by your "tactics", and the attempt of "minor insult" through a proxy (which is pathetic, btw) :D Vsion 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- You better not be implying that I'm a sock-puppet or I shall be very angry
- Haha... aren't you now giving yourself away for using sock puppets for double voting? :D --Vsion 10:49, 27 July 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.
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 (no consensus). For those interested in the vote count I find 17 delete votes and 15 or 16 keep votes depending on whether or not the anonymous vote near the start of the debate is counted. Otherwise moving this page to some other title has been suggested, such discussions should go on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of purported cults
First note that there is a previous VfD from July 2004 which didn't reach consensus.
This new VfD is for an unrelated reason, as I judge the List of purported cults to be original research and as such violating the WP:NOR. This list tries to avoid the POV problems and endless struggles which would plague a "List of cults" (but accept a redirect from there). Only the solution found by the authors of List of purported cults has a massive Original Research problem. The authors are doing their own research which of the zillions of possible sources in mass media are ignored, or put in one three categories of varying degrees of consensus. To make matters worse the authors are also attempting own research, which word in languages other than English should be considered equivalent to "cult". (Unfortunately they ignore the question of the different meanings of "cult" itself, but this is not central to VfD).
Pjacobi 13:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is simply a list of organizations that have been cited as cults by one or more news sources. Perhaps if the article's title were changed to "List of movements and religious groups cited by one or more news sources as being cults," we would not have to consider it for deletion. (Unsigned comment by anon User:68.163.158.3)
- Keep This is definitely not original research - such lists exist by the score in the internet (only none which is so excellently documented regarding its sources and criteria). --Irmgard 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hehe, if this is outstanding from all other attempts to create such a list, how is it not original research. Also please note that this is the 6th vote in response of a call for help from Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 19:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Being very active in two Wikipedias (admin in one) I don't always take the time to check systematically for every vote or article I might be interested in - so I'm really glad if other people inform me about ongoing discussions or problematic articles where I might throw in my two cents, though I never see this as obligation to participate, just as invitation - and if I respond to it, I see it as invitation to state my view on the subject or contribute my knowledge to the article, not echoing someone elses views. --Irmgard 07:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well, firstly, "original research" does not mean and has never meant "the very act of doing research." One might as well ask of any Wikipedia article, "if it is not a copyvio of some existing article on a subject, how is it not 'original research'?" Second of all, why should it be noted which Wikipedians voted on this VfD in response to my letting them know the vote was going on? It almost sounds as if you're suggesting that there is something untoward in doing so, but the only policy or guideline I know which discourages such things applies to notifying non-Wikipedians of a VfD and encouraging them to come and vote. I'm not aware of anything that suggests it's a wrong thing to notify interested Wikipedians of a vote that may affect them. If you find any place where consensus has in fact determined that to be a bad thing, however, I'll get in line behind AI [14] and Zappaz [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] for my chastisement. However, such a policy (if there is one) should really be better publicized, shouldn't it? Otherwise people will not only notify other editors, they'll even [20] instruct them to alert other editors in turn. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with publicizing polls to get as many outside views as possible. If the Wikipedia communities agrees that such action is not good faith, then please point it out. --AI 22:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is to my knowlegde not forbidden, but it might be less helpful than it looks - see Wikipedia:Suffrage, Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppets --Irmgard 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with publicizing polls to get as many outside views as possible. If the Wikipedia communities agrees that such action is not good faith, then please point it out. --AI 22:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Hehe, if this is outstanding from all other attempts to create such a list, how is it not original research. Also please note that this is the 6th vote in response of a call for help from Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 19:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. With all due respect the article is the opposite of original research. Over several months editors worked together on the talk page to develop a strict criteria for inclusion on the list - a direct description of a group as a "cult" by one or more carefully ranked sourced. There have been questions over how to translate foreign words, and it was previously agreed that "sect" is sometimes used in British english and french with the same meaning. A discussion is now underway, which Pjacobi refers to, about the german word "Sekte". But we are treating the matter carefully, seeking citations and working slowly. -Willmcw 15:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource (if they'll have it)Delete. I have no problem with a list of purported cults (although it'd be a nightmare to maintain and remain npov) but this page is original research, not an encyclopedia article. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Have you actually read it? It is now easy to maintain because of the clear criteria that we have. -Willmcw 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It is that very criteria that makes it original research. Where is the reference that these are widely agreed criteria among academics of what makes an organisation a purported cult? I know you have references of where other media agencies have called something a cult, but is that really NPOV? If you take that out, you're just left with the criteria at the start that may as well have been plucked from nowhere. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- One of the article in the "Cult" template is Cult checklists which covers exactly that topic. However, if we were to use one of those checklists to decide on our own if a group was a cult then that would be original research. Like any good NPOV article, we are not making assertions of our own but instead are sourcing every opinion. Should we eschew sources and make determinations on our own logic? That seems totally contrary to the normal methods of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
-
- You keep pursuing the argument of "if it sourced, it is NPOV". But it is not so. A controversial subject (and don't tell me that this is not one of these...), needs to represent all sides of a controversy in a balanced manner to attain NPOV. The groups listed here does not have a recourse to present their POV in the matter. This list is a blacklist in camouflage and deserves to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, Jossi. For purposes of NPOV, it is important, and in fact, the guiding principles of Wikipedia specify, that both sides of the controversy should be represented. The question is, though, when both sides of a controversy about a group are covered in the most logical place -- i.e. in the group's own entry -- is it a violation of NPOV to acknowledge the fact of the controversy in any other place? Because that's what this article is about, about acknowledging these controversies. You've been telling everyone that no, this article goes farther, this article presents the "anti-cult" POV, and only the anti-cult POV, and my question for you is "where?" Where is this article presenting the dissection of doctrines with a critical eye? the testimonies of those harmed and degraded by the group? the secret documents seized by law enforcement and brought out at trials? The answer is, nowhere. The list says "This is the group; these are the sources that raise the issue; you must follow the link if you want to know the arguments on either side of the issue." The list simply does not contain the "anti-cult" POV you are arguing that it presents out of proportion to any other view -- except to the degree that that POV is acknowledged as existing in order to acknowledge the existence of a controversy. And you seem to be arguing that even that much acknowledgement of the existence of a POV that says "this group is a cult" is automatically so damaging an NPOV violation that we must burn the article with fire. How come you've never shown so much concern about, say, whether a group is called a hate group or not? Have you been as fervent in your belief there that an accusation against a group cannot be allowed to exist within a Wikipedia article, unless the opposite POV is presented right then and there, when it's not a group you approve of as the target? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- You keep pursuing the argument of "if it sourced, it is NPOV". But it is not so. A controversial subject (and don't tell me that this is not one of these...), needs to represent all sides of a controversy in a balanced manner to attain NPOV. The groups listed here does not have a recourse to present their POV in the matter. This list is a blacklist in camouflage and deserves to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
-
- One of the article in the "Cult" template is Cult checklists which covers exactly that topic. However, if we were to use one of those checklists to decide on our own if a group was a cult then that would be original research. Like any good NPOV article, we are not making assertions of our own but instead are sourcing every opinion. Should we eschew sources and make determinations on our own logic? That seems totally contrary to the normal methods of Wikipedia. -Willmcw 02:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- It is that very criteria that makes it original research. Where is the reference that these are widely agreed criteria among academics of what makes an organisation a purported cult? I know you have references of where other media agencies have called something a cult, but is that really NPOV? If you take that out, you're just left with the criteria at the start that may as well have been plucked from nowhere. -- Francs2000 | Talk
- Have you actually read it? It is now easy to maintain because of the clear criteria that we have. -Willmcw 15:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The term cult is a minefield if one is to judge by the numerous definitions of the term in the Cult article. In an attempt to make a list of cults NPOV, a group of editors came up with the current idea that somehow skirts the controversy around the term. Admirable as their effort may be, it is unfortunately not NPOV, it is dangerously close to being original research (in particular the taxonomy upon which the source "cohorts" was designed) and the fact that it is still used as a blacklist for many religious groups: Note that List of cults redirects to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Just read the criteria established for including a group in the list, for an example of the extent to which this article resorts to original research. Highlights are mine: Groups are arranged by the "width of consensus" of the sources: sources aligned with widest consensus are first, sources aligned with decreasing consensus follow, and sources that are aligned with only a very narrow consensus in their use of the term "cult" are last. Within these "cohorts" groups are arranged alphabetically. The decision of what "width of consensus" means, the choice of certain sources and exclusion of other sources to have bearing or not on that "consensus" is 100% original research and arbitrary at most. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Note that all of the sources are on the list, just some are ranked higher than others- so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. I don't see what you mean by calling the use of sources "original research." It's just the opposite. -Willmcw 16:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you see it? Why Source A is higher than source B? Why source X is included and Source Y is excluded? The ranking of these sources is indeed, original research. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well- you helpd develop the criteria, disclaimer, and listing of sources. You didn't complain then. This sudden disgust with the article is surprising since you helped make it what it is. -Willmcw 05:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't you see it? Why Source A is higher than source B? Why source X is included and Source Y is excluded? The ranking of these sources is indeed, original research. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Note that all of the sources are on the list, just some are ranked higher than others- so it isn't a matter of picking and choosing. I don't see what you mean by calling the use of sources "original research." It's just the opposite. -Willmcw 16:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Just read the criteria established for including a group in the list, for an example of the extent to which this article resorts to original research. Highlights are mine: Groups are arranged by the "width of consensus" of the sources: sources aligned with widest consensus are first, sources aligned with decreasing consensus follow, and sources that are aligned with only a very narrow consensus in their use of the term "cult" are last. Within these "cohorts" groups are arranged alphabetically. The decision of what "width of consensus" means, the choice of certain sources and exclusion of other sources to have bearing or not on that "consensus" is 100% original research and arbitrary at most. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keepbecause the article is a list of purported cults. The list makes plain that it is "purported" (i.e. commonly put forward). Although I disagree that some of the entities listed are cults (for instance Mormons and JWs are, IMHO, too widespread to be cults), I accept the listing because they are often purported to be, whether or not they in fact are. --Scimitar parley 17:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)- This is exactly the problem. In one breath you speak of purported cults (i.e. maybe not really a cult, just purported), and on the next one you disagree about a group being a cult by virtue of its inclusion on a list about purported cults. If you get confused by this, think of the reader! A blacklist is a blacklist is a blacklist. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's neccessary to be a cult to be included on a list of purported cults, however your last point (on blacklists) has made me reconsider my vote. Even the MILS report (a horribly biased anti-religion piece) views the term "cult" as overly perjorative, and IMHO it's unfair to list organizations with huge memberships (mormons, adventists, jws, etc) on this list. Regrettably (given the obvious effort put into the article) delete. --Scimitar parley 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- This is exactly the problem. In one breath you speak of purported cults (i.e. maybe not really a cult, just purported), and on the next one you disagree about a group being a cult by virtue of its inclusion on a list about purported cults. If you get confused by this, think of the reader! A blacklist is a blacklist is a blacklist. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The restriction on "no original research" is not a bright line. Almost every article involves the exercise of editorial judgement to some extent. When the list seems to be useful, seems to represent a reasonable consensus judgement, and where the items are either noncontroversial or where the interplay of editorial give-and-take has created a reasonably neutral point of view, I think they can be kept. If someone wanted to argue that lists should be formally declared to be held to a looser standard than articles, and should accordingly carry a warning that they represent Wikipedian consensus judgement rather than verifiable fact, I'd go along. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Proposed changes to WP policy should be posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not a change in policy. Observation of actual behavior with VfDs on lists shows that this is de facto policy. I agree that it would be helpful to articulate this explicitly as part of our written policy, but it is not essential. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- "A change in policy" would be changing the definition of "original research" so that it now includes the evaluation of sources for reliability and importance which is part of every well-written article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Proposed changes to WP policy should be posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not here. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Even the title is POV. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- The title deals with matters about which people have strong POVs, that is true. Are you arguing, then, that it is not possible to write about people's POV in an NPOV fashion? If that were true then we'd have to give up on Wikipedia now, because it is founded on the principle that we can write about people's beliefs without endorsing them. Read WP:NPOV if you don't believe it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete The current title is not NPOV. The approach of determining degrees of purported cult-ness is original research - it applies a new metric, original with us. If the article is kept after all, the content could be recreated, revised, under a new article: List of controversial religious movements — appropriate portions might be merged into another new article: List of controversial new religious movements as the target (instead of a redirect). The derogatory nature of those terms, and the blacklisting abuse especially of the word, cult, ought to be described. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete: "purported" : POV, "cult" : POV. The contents of the article then, are POV. Userfy it and then delete it. -Splash 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)- Keep. I have concerns over method, methodology and content, but I am convinced there is encyclopedic information in this article. It is a question of how to extract it, and that cannot be done if it is deleted. This is a close call, however, for the persuasive deletion arguments presented here do not, to my mind, outweigh the keep arguments. -Splash 03:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Text does not have to be lost if moved to userspace. Keep it there and extract whatever useful. --ZappaZ
03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC) - So, then, you do not believe what WP:NPOV states, that our ideal of unbiased writing is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them"? You are instead proposing that to adhere to NPOV, we must refrain from presenting any views that anyone conflicts with? That seems to be what you're arguing, if you're saying "The article is clearly about POVs; therefore, it is clearly POV itself." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see anywhere in the article any conflicting views. Aum Shinkiryo doesn't provide cites that say it's not a cult, and I'll hazard it doesn't call itself one. To cover the conflicting views would essentially be a "List of organisation that are sometime called cults and sometimes not called cults", and then to present a battle-of-the-googles or something. Which, to me at any rate, doesn't impart much encyclopedic information. I suspect that many of these organisations appear on various countries' "restricted organisations" (or whatever) list; a collection along those lines under a relevant title might not be POV and I suspect already exists, somewhere. -Splash 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually a big chunk of the article is sourced from a French parliamentary report (all of the groups marked "FR"). -Willmcw 04:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Splash, have you really considered what you're asking? If you're saying that there are conflicting views which could be added to the article, which have not been, then you've just pointed out why the article should be kept -- because perceived lack of NPOV is not an excuse to delete. If you're arguing, on the other hand, that the charges could not be answered, and therefore it is inherently POV to acknowledge that the charge has been made... well, then, I can think of an awful lot of information on Wikipedia that would have to be thrown out. Most religions, for instance. If I disbelieve in the existence of the angel Moroni, but there is nothing I can say which could disprove his existence, then obviously it is POV for Wikipedia to acknowledge the Mormon belief in his existence -- after all, the conflicting view cannot be presented, right? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- You raise a serious point. I will go away and think about that. -Splash 00:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see anywhere in the article any conflicting views. Aum Shinkiryo doesn't provide cites that say it's not a cult, and I'll hazard it doesn't call itself one. To cover the conflicting views would essentially be a "List of organisation that are sometime called cults and sometimes not called cults", and then to present a battle-of-the-googles or something. Which, to me at any rate, doesn't impart much encyclopedic information. I suspect that many of these organisations appear on various countries' "restricted organisations" (or whatever) list; a collection along those lines under a relevant title might not be POV and I suspect already exists, somewhere. -Splash 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Text does not have to be lost if moved to userspace. Keep it there and extract whatever useful. --ZappaZ
- Delete - POV hell - even if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect - the words have so many shades of meaning that placing groups on a list would be pretty pointless --Doc (?) 00:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- "if we could agree what has been called a cult or sect" -- with all due respect, this makes me think you haven't even looked at the article. A group goes into the article because we have a firm citation that a source has indeed called it a cult or a sect, along with which source it was. An article that tries to go further than that and decide which callings are accurate, now that would have the kind of problems you describe, but again, that is not the article under discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did read it, and I'll grant you all of the above - but my point is that if a journalist has called something a cult that in itself is pretty meaningless. All users of the word mean different (derogatory) things by it - 'one man's sect is another man's denomination'. An article listing religious groups called 'cult' might list them all. It would be a bit like having an article list of purported right-wing groups each cite is just a record of some journalist’s POV --Doc (?) 10:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Highly sourced. This is an example of best practice, not "POV hell". —Seselwa 00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Inherently POV. LDS is on this list?!?! I would be comfortable calling all Christianity a cult (although few others might agree), but placing a major denomination on this, without including the others, is an enormous error and a disservice to public discussion on the topic. Note that this is merely a symptom of a larger problem: I find LDS troubling, but others might find any entry troubling. Hence, inherently POV. Xoloz 03:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not original research. It is stretching the imagination to try and call it original research. If we delete this article because it is "original research" then we may as well delete all of Wikipedia, because there is no article on here that doesn't require exactly the same sort of "original research" -- considering the various points of view put forth by various sources, trying to decide which sources are credible, which sources are prominent even if not fully credible -- and the average article calls for editors to synthesize from those largely unspoken judgements that an accusation by CBS News needs to be reported and an accusation on an anonymous Geocities webpage does not. This article goes farther than most Wikipedia articles do to avoid any NPOV problems coming from editors' undiscussed, undisclosed decisions about which sources are worthy of mention and why by discussing it and disclosing it and putting that information into the article. To pretend we have to destroy this article to satisfy NPOV is to willfully misread WP:NPOV and what it says about not letting NPOV spill over into false balance where no judgements may be made about sources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Where are the conflicting views presented to be able to adhere to NPOV? Where are all the newspaper articles, or encyclopedias in which these groups were not labelled as "cults". And what about the blacklist from the France government? Where is the opposite view to that? Can we say than group XYZ is not considered a cult by the governments of Italy, Canda, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, etc.? It does not make sense. NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- You've never mentioned this concern on the talk page of the article before. You particpated in the discussions that developed the current criteria. If it was a problem why didn't you say so? -Willmcw 16:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Where are the conflicting views presented to be able to adhere to NPOV? Where are all the newspaper articles, or encyclopedias in which these groups were not labelled as "cults". And what about the blacklist from the France government? Where is the opposite view to that? Can we say than group XYZ is not considered a cult by the governments of Italy, Canda, Spain, Greece, Venezuela, etc.? It does not make sense. NPOV requires that a controversial subject is treated in such way that the controversy is described and conflicting views be given a balanced coverage. This cannot happen here and thus, this article is POV and fundamentally flawed. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Extensively researched, and gives a fairly good picture of the general views of the organizations in the article. Haikupoet 04:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, inherently POV and subjective. Radiant_>|< 12:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- It's this tuff that makes Wikipedia so interesting! (Unsigned comment by 131.247.165.35 (talk · contribs)
- Delete. Inherently defamatory and POV lists really don't belong on Wikipedia. Kaibabsquirrel 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - difficult, but that's not a reason to delete - David Gerard 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The regular participants on this article have made a Herculean effort to maintain NPOV while still noting the fact that there are groups considered to be cults. The fact that they are considered to be cults is, just that -- a fact -- and as such it is NPOV. The articles supporting these groups' inclusion on this list are a way of maintaining NPOV, by noting the fact that the groups in question are considered to be cults by many different sources -- not just the POV statement of Wikipedians with an "agenda." In fact, a persistent attempt to include Judaism on the list of cults was rebuffed for precisely that reason: someone was pushing a POV. Therefore, I will support this article because it supports NPOV. --Modemac 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and merge citations into each group's article. Being one of the editors whose "herculean" efforts are praised above, and after heavy consideration, I have decided to vote for the deletion of the article for many of the reasons stated by my peers above. So that we do not lose the extensive work done (mainly by User:Willmcw), I propose to move the text to userspace, delete the article, and slowly and carefully merge citations into each group's article (e. g. in Aum Shinrikyo we add: "This group was refered to as a cult in The Washington Post[21], the BBC[22],] and Encarta[23]." This way we maintain NPOV, and we don't lose the extensive work done Willmcw and others. (Sorry Will...) --ZappaZ 04:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Do you mind explaining how information is POV if combined in one article, but is NPOV if distributed to 50 articles? I don't see how that makes a difference. thanks Willmcw 05:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- It is obvious: In a group's article is good information and valid as it read within context. Readers can then make up their minds about what that group is or is not. In the list, it is a one sided POV expressed: the one of the sources we chose. The complaint about original research about our cohorts, the initial basis for this VfD, gets adressed as well. --ZappaZ 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is obvious: In a group's article is good information and valid as it read within context. Readers can then make up their minds about what that group is or is not. In the list, it is a one sided POV expressed: the one of the sources we chose. The complaint about original research about our cohorts, the initial basis for this VfD, gets adressed as well. --ZappaZ
- Do you mind explaining how information is POV if combined in one article, but is NPOV if distributed to 50 articles? I don't see how that makes a difference. thanks Willmcw 05:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and merge. Early Christianity, in all its various sects, was considered a cult for centuries until its endorsement by Constantine. After the definition of Christian orthodoxy, many long established Christian viewpoints were considered heretical cults. All emerging Protestant denominations were considered heretical cults by the Roman Catholic church - and the later movements (i.e. Quakers and Puritans) by the mainline Protestant churches as well. Almost all religious movements begin as a "cult" - a movement based on the charismatic appeal of one individual. So where in history should the article start? The sources for the article are very recent and reflect modern perspectives and prejudices (which are usually based on old ideas lurking in the mist). Although an interesting, and exhausting effort, I would have to vote to delete. But incorporating the sources -- and the reasons the sources assert these movements are cults -- into existing articles could be useful. Controversial and edgy, perhaps, but useful. This would allow counterpoints and sources to be presented. WBardwin 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I must point out that this article was nominated for deletion without any real attempt to improve or correct it by the nominators. It has not had a POV tag on it since May 31, 2005, when Jossifresco removed one that had been up for a day.[24] Pjacobi nominated it only four days and seven talk-page comments after he first raised a concern.[25] We have numerouos mechanisms for improving articles–none of them have been tried. I think that it is a very poor consideration of the dozens, maybe hundreds of hours of volunteer time that have gone into this article over its long history. I also note that this article was nominated when two key editors of the article, user:Hawstom (who proposed the criteria that we're using) and user:Ed Poor, are on announced wikiholidays. -Willmcw 06:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Please read my rationale for deletion just at the top of this page. I didn't nominate for POV (which not even is a valid deletion reason) but for Original Research, whis is a valid deletion reason. I also commented why thing, this is an essentially uncurable problem. --Pjacobi 17:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Don't know if this is possible (you may know better, Will), but we could ask the admin that assumes responsibility for this VfD, to allow for Ed Poor and Tom's votes to count even if casted after the 5 day period and to tally the votes only after receiving these two votes. --ZappaZ 12:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Zappaz, you here seem to be mistaking WP for a democracy. Please see Guide to VfD, specifically the part that starts "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves." I agree that something about the timing of this VfD seems very fishy. -- Hoary 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I regret that you are insinuating that something is "fishy", because it isn't. See Talk:List of purported cults and read User:Pjacobi's intention to VfD this article being clearly stated. Please do not start with conspiracy theories. That is not needed as it reduces the quality of this discussion. Thanks. --ZappaZ 03:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Your comment puzzles me. I don't think I insinuated anything, certainly nothing about any "conspiracy". -- Hoary 04:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I regret that you are insinuating that something is "fishy", because it isn't. See Talk:List of purported cults and read User:Pjacobi's intention to VfD this article being clearly stated. Please do not start with conspiracy theories. That is not needed as it reduces the quality of this discussion. Thanks. --ZappaZ
- Comment: Zappaz, you here seem to be mistaking WP for a democracy. Please see Guide to VfD, specifically the part that starts "The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. The votes are a means to gauge consensus, and not the ends in themselves." I agree that something about the timing of this VfD seems very fishy. -- Hoary 03:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Don't know if this is possible (you may know better, Will), but we could ask the admin that assumes responsibility for this VfD, to allow for Ed Poor and Tom's votes to count even if casted after the 5 day period and to tally the votes only after receiving these two votes. --ZappaZ
- Keep, as this dispassionately and usefully lists what are verifiably described as cults. -- Hoary 06:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The Wikipedia article Cult gives sufficient reasons for a "delete" vote, I think, but Googling "cult" will bring out even more strongly that labelling any group a cult is essentially subjective — either directly, or indirectly through the choice of one specific set of criteria out of many posible sets (as in the case of the approach taken here). It's difficult, then, to see the point or usefulness of the article, but easy to see how it might mislead and offend. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The Cult article strikes me as odd, with its introductory paragraph about "cult" in what is now a less-used sense, and its continuation with "Definitions of 'cult'" whose concluding paragraph reads "However, in common usage, 'cult' has a very negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group in order to criticize it." (Perhaps to criticize. Or perhaps simply to describe the unpleasant reality of the organization in a terse and immediately understandable way.) If "cult" indeed usually meant something like "locally unusual or unorthodox religious group", it would indeed be meaningless, but since it (I think) usually means a (pseudo-/quasi-) organization that has a fairly well recognized number of traits, a list seems, if not useful, then potentially useful. -- Hoary 09:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not normally going to delete an article because of its content, merely flag for a rewrite, but in this case I think we're at an inherently unencyolpedic article. I really don't think this list tells us anything encyolopedic. Its just a list against a certain criterion, that has reached a limited wikipedian consensus, but does not reflect and report the mainstream, near consensus view of the world at large, not to mention a systemic bais on American, UK, and French Journals. Perhaps I might be persuaded that a list of dangerous cults is encylcopedic, with the critereon of dangerous being on a law enforcment agency's watch list. I am afraid though that list of purported cults is likley to get us into a trap where inorder to remain NPOV, we become utterly useless and unencyclopedic.--Tznkai 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:
I don't think that this list is original research.On second thought I agree with Pjacobi that this may veers off into original research if we use each and every (fringe) source. So the sources have to be confined to clearly mainstream English articles, excl. among others opinion pieces by columnists. I however think that this is a list made purely by the POV of the media and sources. If this is not allowed, and may be it should not be allowed, then we should also delete several other articles and categories e.g. the List_of_people_widely_considered_eccentric Andries 20:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)- I see no reason for this purported list or that list of eccentrics other than to be used as reference by those who wish to push a particular POV. I agree that List of people widely considered eccentric should also be put up for VfD. --AI 21:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Andries most recent comment. Why are dutch sources being used where they label groups as sectes. In english "sect" is not simply synonymous with "cult" Why are media opinions that call groups "sectes" uses to attribute claims that those groups have been called "cults" The problem is not only original research, but "poor" research. How about a List of Wikipedia contributors who have engaged in bad research. :) --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Followin the same reasoning here is another VfD candidate List of films that have been cited as being among the worst ever made, and List of controversial non-fiction books (that is not sourced, so it has a huge POV problem), and there must be far more lists and categories. Andries 11:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Keep. It is a fact that some organisations are branded 'cults' by others. A list of such organisations and movements is definitely needed. Many of the votes above seem to based on the validity of 'cult' as a concept. It might be a wrong concept but it still exists, and we can't pretend otherwise. The exact formatting and presentation of the information is debeatable, I think the current highly-sourced article is a vast improvement on what was there before (which was kept anyway). Morwen - Talk 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and rename into List of groups reported as cults Andries 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:You are ignoring all the points made as the reasons to delete this article. The problem is not with the title. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Why are you leaping to the conclusion that those points are being ignored? Instead of, say, just being found wrong-headed and inadequate? I know I, for one, don't believe that simply mentioning that a certain group has been accused of something by somebody to automatically be POV. AND NEITHER DO YOU. A bit of the good ol' "Do as I say, not as I do", eh, Jossi? A far cry from when you were fighting hard to keep that unproven accusation in an article without presenting the opposition, isn't it? Let's see who else has found unproven accusations just fine and dandy when it's not the accusation of being a cult... Ooooh, here's this little gem... "And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well." So an unproven accusation is perfectly fine to report on, as long as a "substantial point" is made of it, and the credibility of the source doesn't even matter! So clearly, the argument that List of purported cults has to be deleted because it contains carefully sourced claims is not one swallowed by this chap, who argued passionately that Hate group must, for NPOV, contain an allegation that certain critics of a certain NRM are a hate group! Oh, wait... that was User:Zappaz, who is calling for the article's deletion... You know, I take back what I said above. I don't find your "points" presented for deletion of the article to be wrong-headed and inadequate. I find them wrong-headed, inadequate and BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL. I frankly call for the admin who tallies this vote to take the extreme bad faith being blatantly displayed by some of those voting "delete" into account.-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I find your rethoric appalling and unbecoming. You are sending a very clear message to each and everyone of your fellow editors about your behavior in this project. Speaks for itself. --ZappaZ 16:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- I find your shifting of the topic from "what principles do we practice on Wikipedia, and are the people who claim we should delete this article because of principle X actually adhering to principle X?" to "oooh! rhetoric! bad! look at the nasty rhetoric! pay no attention to the double standard behind the curtain!" to send a "very clear message", too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, I do not think that I am ignoring the problems. I thought about them and I think they have too little merit. May be we should remove the redirect from list of cults, list of purported cults, to list of groups reported as cults to get rid of, at least some, of the blacklisting idea. Frivolous classification by the media of a group as a cult will backfire on these media, I believe. Andries 08:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Backfire on the media? Yes, and pigs fly too. :) --≈ jossi ≈ 10:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I personally think and I think that I am not the only one that the Chines reaction to Falun Gong and the view of the German Federal Govt. that the tiny Scientology Curch with its extremely negative public image is a threat to the German democracy that has shown great stability during the last 50 years is paranoid and ridiculous and backfires on them. Scientology and Falun Gong may harm deeply involved members but that is a different mattter. Andries 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- The biggest threat to any democracy is the most dangerous cult which is not even listed on this list: Al-Qaeda. Just because the media hasn't labelled them a cult. What do you personally think about that? --AI 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, the media has called Al-Qaeda a cult.[26] Feel free to add it. -Willmcw 12:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- It is not true that Al-Qaeda has not been labelled a cult by the media. The Dutch Muslim broadcasting organization called Al-Qaeda a "sekte" Dutch for cult. Discussions about brainwashing, typically associated with the debates about cults, resurfaced in the debates about Al-Qaeda, rarely heard about since the great cult scare of the 1970s and the 1980s here in the Netherlands. Just yesterday 23-7-2005, the Volkskrant newspaper wrote about brainwashing related to the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on page 5. The list is work in progress. Andries 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Al-Qaeda was actually included on this list for quite a while, though it was removed from the list with this edit on April 11. --Modemac 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- The biggest threat to any democracy is the most dangerous cult which is not even listed on this list: Al-Qaeda. Just because the media hasn't labelled them a cult. What do you personally think about that? --AI 12:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- I personally think and I think that I am not the only one that the Chines reaction to Falun Gong and the view of the German Federal Govt. that the tiny Scientology Curch with its extremely negative public image is a threat to the German democracy that has shown great stability during the last 50 years is paranoid and ridiculous and backfires on them. Scientology and Falun Gong may harm deeply involved members but that is a different mattter. Andries 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Backfire on the media? Yes, and pigs fly too. :) --≈ jossi ≈ 10:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I find your rethoric appalling and unbecoming. You are sending a very clear message to each and everyone of your fellow editors about your behavior in this project. Speaks for itself. --ZappaZ
- Comment: Why are you leaping to the conclusion that those points are being ignored? Instead of, say, just being found wrong-headed and inadequate? I know I, for one, don't believe that simply mentioning that a certain group has been accused of something by somebody to automatically be POV. AND NEITHER DO YOU. A bit of the good ol' "Do as I say, not as I do", eh, Jossi? A far cry from when you were fighting hard to keep that unproven accusation in an article without presenting the opposition, isn't it? Let's see who else has found unproven accusations just fine and dandy when it's not the accusation of being a cult... Ooooh, here's this little gem... "And yes, John: If any other organization, controversial or not, (church, NRM, group, etc.) makes a substantial point of calling another organization or group a "hate group" and publish that in their literature, then definitively it should be mentioned in this article as well." So an unproven accusation is perfectly fine to report on, as long as a "substantial point" is made of it, and the credibility of the source doesn't even matter! So clearly, the argument that List of purported cults has to be deleted because it contains carefully sourced claims is not one swallowed by this chap, who argued passionately that Hate group must, for NPOV, contain an allegation that certain critics of a certain NRM are a hate group! Oh, wait... that was User:Zappaz, who is calling for the article's deletion... You know, I take back what I said above. I don't find your "points" presented for deletion of the article to be wrong-headed and inadequate. I find them wrong-headed, inadequate and BLATANTLY HYPOCRITICAL. I frankly call for the admin who tallies this vote to take the extreme bad faith being blatantly displayed by some of those voting "delete" into account.-- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:You are ignoring all the points made as the reasons to delete this article. The problem is not with the title. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I'm somewhat disappointed, that a lot of fellow editors voting here, seem not to have read the reason for deletion at the very top (and instead start quarreling about POV). If the question which media and government labels which organization a cult (in which meaning of the word "cult", preferably) is an area of active research on scholarly base, and results of this research can be quoted, then there would be no problem with putting up a list. But in the case to be decided here, the article contributors decided to take the research in their own hands. That's the problem. --Pjacobi 16:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment (reply to Pjacobi) Some scholars have documented that there are some groups that were or are generally considered cults by the media and the public. E.g. Saul Levine M.D. in his article Life in the cults published in the 1989 book edited by the psychiatrist Marc Galanter called Cults and new religious movements, publised by the American Psychiatric Association writes
- "Groups that this author has heard called cults by concerned relatives of members have included Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jewry, Born Again Christians, Bahai, IBM, est, and Gestalt to name a few. For purposes of this chapter however, we will use as examples which there appears to be considerable unanimity. That is, these four - Hare krishna, the Unification Church, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission - have probably been held in less esteem by more people than most of the other groups combined [..]"
- Andries 17:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Pjacobi, it sounds like what you are saying is that this article would avoid the "original research" problem you think you see if we simply included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe -- that way we'd be doing no "original research" in trying to determine which claims have any credibility or notability, which is the objection you raised. The prohibition on "original research" is just that -- a prohibition on original research. Looking at what others before you have said on the subject isn't original research, it's just research. Weighing the significance of what others have said on the subject by factors such as credibility and notability doesn't make it original research, either, just still plain research. As I've said, if we start misclassifying the sourcing of articles and the weighing of sources as "original research" there's little on Wikipedia we won't have to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Antaeus, you know that we cannot included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe, so you shouldn't assume, I'm proposing this. But it must be work outside the Wikipedia, summarizing and evaluating the vast area of all these who says what mess. To be done by academic scholars and published in a peer reviewed journal, preferably. --Pjacobi 17:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that you proposed that. What I'm saying is that that is the logical outcome of what you are proposing; namely, that weighing and selecting and attributing sources, all of which are recommended practices on Wikipedia, should be reclassified as "original research" contrary to how that term has always been defined on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weighting, selecting and attributing of scholarly sources is typipal encyclopedic work. But weighting, selecting and attributing common use of language is research. --Pjacobi 19:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Pjacobi has a point, but I think that many lists and articles are based on the media whithout getting VfD'd for original research. To minimize the possible original research at least we should confine ourselves to English language mainstream media. Andries 15:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weighting, selecting and attributing of scholarly sources is typipal encyclopedic work. But weighting, selecting and attributing common use of language is research. --Pjacobi 19:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that you proposed that. What I'm saying is that that is the logical outcome of what you are proposing; namely, that weighing and selecting and attributing sources, all of which are recommended practices on Wikipedia, should be reclassified as "original research" contrary to how that term has always been defined on Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Antaeus, you know that we cannot included every single accusation ever from any source at all no matter how fringe, so you shouldn't assume, I'm proposing this. But it must be work outside the Wikipedia, summarizing and evaluating the vast area of all these who says what mess. To be done by academic scholars and published in a peer reviewed journal, preferably. --Pjacobi 17:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is nothing useful in this article which is based on an arbitrary definition applied in a speculative manner.--Fahrenheit451 22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep However badly written designed (a problem which can be corrected), this page is still vital because of the nature of the topic. Sweetfreek 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article will never be more than an exercise in namecalling, or a survey of namecalling. Do we have a List of purported cads? Why not? That's why we shouldn't have this article, either. --goethean ॐ 14:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: That would be correct -- if it were true that saying something is a "cult" is "never [anything] more" than namecalling. While many people like to claim exactly that as if it were true, all it takes to prove it untrue is to look at cult checklist. These are professionals in government and in academia who are clearly using the word and the concept in an attempt to predict and to understand, not to namecall. You may not agree with their theories, and that's fine. You may have the POV that every scholar who ever entertained the notion that the theoretical construct of "cult" ever had any value has their head up their backside -- and that's a legitimate POV. But to claim that no allegation that a group is a cult can ever be more than namecalling, and to call for deletion of this article based on that opinion, is to ask Wikipedia to endorse your POV above all those others. We don't have a list of purported cads because no professional has ever tried to classify exactly what distinguishes a cad from a non-cad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- The cult checklists — plural — are subjective, vague and contradictory. The cult checklists are not specific enough to objectively include some groups while excluding more mainstream ones. It is namecalling and an ideological weapon, not science.
- As I've said before, you are completely entitled to your opinion that the science involved is bad. However, if you are claiming that there is no science involved, and that the word only exists so that purported experts can dress up namecalling -- would you care to explain why said purported namecallers would try to define criteria that could then be used to exclude groups from said namecalling? The intent is clearly more than namecalling. Your POV may be that that intent can never be realized, that there is something inherent in the word "cult" that prevents it from ever being used to designate a legitimate sociological concept. But don't expect that Wikipedia has to endorse your POV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- The cult checklists — plural — are subjective, vague and contradictory. The cult checklists are not specific enough to objectively include some groups while excluding more mainstream ones. It is namecalling and an ideological weapon, not science.
-
- After looking at the list more closely, I am disgusted. Harmless groups like the Hare Krishnas, Christian Scientists, and Sathya Sai Baba are not distinguished from groups of murderers like Al Qaeda and the Manson Family. Recommend renaming article to List of religious groups that people don't like, or, even more accurately, List of religious groups disliked by people who we like. --goethean ॐ 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree. This is what is a clear example of Guilt by association:Al-Qaeda is evil, and it is listed here, so group XYZ that is also listed must be evil', a fallacy abused by those in our society that are intolerant of non-conforming beliefs. These non-conforming beliefs are being shamelessly targeted and blacklisted. Another example of intolerance dressed as NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Some editors tried to get a separation between "deadly cults" and the rest, however other editors, including those voting in foavor of deletion, vetoed it. If you think that such a division is appropriate then you might add a note onthe article talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't. I think that the whole article is an exercise in anti-religious sentiment and witch-hunting. Seperating the vicious murderers from those who merely hold beliefs that you dislike might be a good first step towards making it less obviously so. --goethean ॐ 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't dislike any of these groups. Please assume good faith. -Willmcw 21:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't. I think that the whole article is an exercise in anti-religious sentiment and witch-hunting. Seperating the vicious murderers from those who merely hold beliefs that you dislike might be a good first step towards making it less obviously so. --goethean ॐ 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Comment: I have been observing this discussion from the sidelines, and what I see is that editors are missing the fact that this is a political ethical, and deeply personal discussion, not a POV vs. NPOV, blacklisting/namecalling, original researrch or the like. This is all about the politics of the countercult/anti-cult (a very unlikely coalition of new leftists, evangelical Christian fundamentalists, and skeptics) vs. the politics of the moderate religious, the academia, and some open minded libertarians, are at the core. These politics are unlikely to disappear precisely because of the political act's ability to polarize issues, to disguise aspects of those issues which do not serve the various poles or positions. A huge amount of intellectual energy has been spent on defining (or more correctly, attempting to define) the word "cult". This discussion being yet another one in that cacophony of voices, is not unique or any different. Then, of course, there are the no less powerful arguments fueled by a deep personal agenda: apostates vs. new religions, rightist vs. leftists, and the wide gamut of strong opinions stirring the pot of any discussion about beliefs, God, human nature, freedom, liberty, and human rights. If one is to judge the related articles on mind control, brainwashing, cults, cult apologists, and the like, one will find the same political divide as in this discussion, and the same editors at each side of the battlefield. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia and its NPOV policy can move from utopia to reality: Accepting the politics involved will be a honest first step. The outcome of debates like this one, and the dismissal or acceptance of articles like this one into the Wikipedia fold, will undoubtedly shape the future and relevance of this encyclopedia. --38.119.107.70 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- In that case I propose that we declare "no consensus" and move on. There is often no coming to terms when there is an emotional note to the facts in a debate. Haikupoet 03:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic of general interest. The article may have to be renamed and/or reworded, but that is beside the point. Fact is, the word "cult" gets used (not by us, but demonstrably by others), and the question of who uses it to describe which organizations is inherently interesting. One may think that the article title is POV, but that only warrants a call for improvement, not deletion. There are many articles with seemingly POV titles (e.g. list of countries that are considered the greatest) and neutral, factual contents. This particular list clearly strives for accuracy and includes relevant disclaimers as well as a definition of its scope. That's more than can be said about other lists on controversial topics. --MarkSweep 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment those articles you mention are useless for an encyclopedia unless you think Wikipedia is a a propaganda tool. --AI 21:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: We are not comparing like with like. Read list of countries that are considered the greatest - it actually deals in verifiable and notable facts. So, in a manner does this article, but the fact that some journalist once called a certain group a cult, although verifiable, is not notable. There are so many definitions of 'cult' that anything might have been meant, and different things will have been meant, on each occaasion. To gather these disparate references together to create a list - creates a meaningless list. We might as well have a 'list of organizations at one time called bizzare' --Doc (?) 21:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia is a cult in my opinion and I am notable. :) --AI 01:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful list. Not inherently POV, since the list serves to explain who thinks these things and why in brief, while implicitly referring to the pages on the movements in question for details. Lord Bob 22:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Propaganda. The method for deciding on inclusion of groups in this list is original research. IMHO, use of the word purported to avoid List of cults is not good faith: Purported[27] is vague and refers to a assumptions. The assumptions used are not necessarily from experts on religion and in many cases the opinions are from the media. --AI 14:30, 20 July 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.
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 send this off to BJAODN. Take a look here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] If a tree falls down in a forest, and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Non-Encyclopedic — Chris Capoccia T⁄C 13:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - patent nonsense JRP 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Anyone want to count the fallacies and misuses of logic in that? I lost count, myself. -R. fiend 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- WTF? - I mean - Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing encyclopedic here. --Several Times 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sigh. I worry about the future of the British government... Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN I actually found the arguments quite funny. --Scimitar parley 17:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Not a Encyclopedia Article - NickC 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or BJAODN. Original research. It seems at least as sound as some of the arguments for the existence of God that I've seen presented. Anyway: 1) Nothing is better than a good laugh. 2) This article is a good laugh. 3) Ergo, it would be better to have no article at all than to have this article. So delete it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN as a flawed concept. -- BD2412 talk 19:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- BJADON. --Titoxd 21:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If this article is dropped from Wikipedia, and no-one reads it, does it make me happy? Yes! --A D Monroe III 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- LART time. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and maybe send to BJAODN. Binadot 22:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This philosophical question is well-known, and it might be possible to write a reasonable article about it, however this article is just nonsense. --Buuneko 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete for this steaming pile of nonsense. The fact that #8 is taken as an assumption, without any qualification, made me wretch. Xoloz 03:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- BJOADN. Ridiculous argument that goes everywhere and nowhere. Item 27 even purports to prove that "this argument must... be flawed". Eric119 07:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- BJAODN. JamesBurns 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- A clear case of BJAODN. -- Kaszeta 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Kill it with fire.DS 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- This joke would have been cool, if it didn't suck so much.--Muchosucko 23:50, 22 July 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.
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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of small-bust models and performers
The stupidest thing ever written for Wikipedia? Probably not, but, Christ, what are people thinking? I guess we know where alot of our bad articles are coming from, anyway. -R. fiend 14:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Subjective. --Scimitar parley 14:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I suppose, although I really sort of like the idea myself jamesgibbon 14:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. But the other one is going to likely be kept along with this. The Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" value (okay, that is subjective too) is being degraded by things like this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 14:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, impossible to remain objective. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete IBTC listing. — RJH 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- ...I guess we know where alot of our bad articles are coming from, anyway From Germany or what? :-) MutterErde 16:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete... before somebody creates list of perfectly-normal-sized-bust models and performers. Flowerparty 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- This reminds me of a similar list that is on VFD, except the women have big bust. It will be laced with POV, since some people could be insulted if they are put on the list. What I might consider small, someone thinks it's "just right," etc. Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unmaintainable and too broad. 23skidoo 17:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- I actually provided my rationale several hours before this page was even created. As per what I said on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers about this very page when it was still a redlink, Delete. Uncle G 18:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete DJ Clayworth 18:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Win777 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Idiots. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Impossible to remain un-biased. No criteria defined for a "small-bust". See arguments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers, as this article is similar. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 20:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - arrrgggghhhh. How i hate fake tits ! :-( btw: There´s no red link in it :-) Greetings MutterErde 20:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, for same reasons as above and over at the other VfD. I suppose we have List of medium-bust models and performers too, or will that be red? -Splash 22:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:POINT. Proto t c 09:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. That's per MutterErde. Almafeta 02:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unless this is a substantial porn genre as big-bust is. Dcarrano 18:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, since physical attributes are a selection criteria for casting. More refinement of the definition (like excluding males:)) would be welcome. Jamesday 12:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Entirely subjective, and impossible to correct. "Bust size" is determined solely by opinion. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, isn't bust size objective? Delete nonetheless. DS 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Expand, but Remove POV-personal "shout-out" to small-busted women. There is a useful market definition of this out there: [28], [29]. --Jpbrenna 19:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- That was not a personal shout-out to small-busted woman , that was a shout against plastic surgery. Again: arrrgggghhhh!!!!!. MutterErde 07:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (btw.: i´m wondering that nobody adds a name to that list except me - even Mr.Whales has no idea [30]. Are there in the big USA no more women with nice small natural boobs ?
- PS: Redlinks please only with external link.Thank you MutterErde 08:03, 28 July 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.
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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] DiMENSiON
Was marked speedy, though not a true candidate. Vanity Band page, non-notable, no google hits Gblaz 15:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I originally marked it speedy, but was mistaken (pulled the trigger a little too fast), Gblaz was correct to change it to vfd. Non-notable vanity page. - Chairboy 15:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Delete …Guy M… (soapbox) 15:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)Delete - Apparent Vanity --Irishpunktom\talk 15:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Delete. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Delete - Grpunkim 18:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 08:12, 21 July 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.
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 Transwiki and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] White on rice
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- BMIComp (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 08:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Comment. The link from the VfD page to this page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 18:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dcarrano 18:58, 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.
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 (only 1 valid keep vote) -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Smogon
Smells like an advertisement to me! 841 google hits, and apparently there's also a Pokemon with this name, and a good portion of the pages are in another language which i cannot read. --Phroziac (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep --RicePigeonKKM 23:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- BMIComp (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, easily the most important site in online Pokémon battling other than the site of Pokémon NetBattle itself (pokemon+netbattle is 13,300 google hits, 16,300 for just netbattle), and is both the unofficial discussion forums of NetBattle (NetBattle has its own, but they are inactive so NetBattle regulars use Smogon instead) and the official strategy forums[35]. Smogon is also NetBattle's most popular server by far, and the owner has recently joined NetBattle's dev team. Lack of google hits is simply due to its relative youth, hopefully I've shown that it's far more popular than google would show. Also, why would smogon give 838 hits but smogon+netbattle give 7,380? - Jshadias 11:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Pokémon NetBattle already covers the material and low Google/Alexa #601,833 indicates it doesn't merit its own article. Dcarrano 19:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Pokémon NetBattle does not already cover the material - Jshadias 23:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, The Smogon.com community, both the web site and online forum, serves as the primary location for discussion between the most skilled online battlers from all the major and most influential competitive battling communities such as GameFAQs and Azure Heights, and between aspiring battlers for whom Smogon.com has become their primary resource concerning the metagames of all three generations. While Phroziac probably means well, if he/she were more familiar with the community/communities he/she would realize that there is no question about the significance of Smogon among competitive battlers. (There's also no real redundancy with the NetBattle article that I can see.) - MattW 70.20.22.199 21:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable website. Most websites are important to some small community, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic in a larger sense. CDC (talk) 23:10, 28 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dmitri Nechayev
There was never a revolutionary under the name of Dmitri Nechayev. The author probably meant Sergey Nechayev, and there is already a big article about this person. They shouldn't be merged, because the first article lacks detail and represents a brief summary of this revolutionary's life. KNewman 16:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 08:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, hoax/mixup. Dcarrano 19:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Create a Redirect, there are many pages that link to this article, and not to Sergey Nechayev. --Mr.Rocks 11:04, 2 August 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.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Two Tall
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ink, Incorporated
It has no information that is not provided in the Extreme Dodgeball page, no background information, in all a totally useless page. Completely unorganized, and it just lists the members of the team. Matjlav 18:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, as a very short article with little or no context. I would have had no clue about looking in Dodgeball - how did you know to do that?! -Splash 22:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- There was a link to the page in the ED page. I looked at it, and found nothing but that. --Matjlav 23:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn team vanity. JamesBurns 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Very Strong Delete as there is little or no info about them. 05:30, 28 July, 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen M. Forrest
"Visiting instructor" and postdoctoral student (albeit Ivy League). No publications or achievements. The biography contains original research, apparently written by an appreciative student of his. This subject is currently much less notable than the average full professor. Willmcw 18:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Appears to fail Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Further, can find no curriculum vitae for him. Is he even published? He is ABD..all but doctorate; he's NOT a PhD just yet. Almost, but he's not there yet. He may be worth including here in a few years, but not yet. --Durin 20:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, even if he had a PhD. Needs to be more notable than your average college professor, adn they've all got PhDs. -Splash 22:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete vanity, no notability asserted. --Etacar11 01:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:19, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alove For Enemies
Delete. Does not quite meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. While they have released two albums, neither of these were on "a major label or one of the more important indie labels." If they should happen to break out, the article can be re-created at a later date, and only one sentence will be lost. Icelight 18:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Clean-up. Google returns a good number of results, including for well-known lyrics websites. It's terribly written, though. If anyone can find out anything worth noting, put it in there and fix this thing. Thorns Among Our Leaves 19:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:21, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Direct Lending , Inc.
Non-notable company/advertising Gblaz 19:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- It's certainly advertising. Delete. --Several Times 19:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- 'Delete as per Several Times. Pavel Vozenilek 20:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn advertising. JamesBurns 08:21, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ben Walther
Not notable. Does not seem to meet standards set in WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, only has one album and no other claim to fame, thus fails WP:MUSIC which suggests at least two albums. Has no mention on allmusic.com, and "Ben Walther" "Where I Want To Be" only gets 7 Googles. -Splash 22:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:23, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Helen Brown
Non-notable. --Ngb 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 20:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity; student officer of an undergraduate student association. If the article remains, it must be copyedited. --Durin 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; I'm not convinced (see Template talk:Durham college) whether JCR presidents even deserve mention on the college's page; they certainly don't need pages of their own. TSP 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- delete - isn't this now speedyable? Lupin 12:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Probably yes according to the new vanity policy. Regardless, the vote is currently 6-0 to delete. I don't think we have to worry about this article hanging around for much longer :) --Durin 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's speedyable if you don't consider that being President of a JCR (i.e. head of a body with about 1,000 members) is a "remotely plausible" claim to notability. Actually I think it probably exceeds that bar; it's just not sufficient to get past VfD. TSP 15:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Probably yes according to the new vanity policy. Regardless, the vote is currently 6-0 to delete. I don't think we have to worry about this article hanging around for much longer :) --Durin 13:41, 22 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rebel Networks
Advertising, spam, press release 66.216.68.28 20:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Several Times 20:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, clear spam. Pavel Vozenilek 20:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Spam - could this not have been a speedy? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, advertising. JamesBurns 08:23, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sex Copter
Band vanity. Will record the first album any day now. Joyous (talk) 20:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. --Durin 20:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete drini ☎ 21:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday 23:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 08:25, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] SmartCOP
Delete: based on Wikipedia:No original research. --Durin 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Do NOT Delete: This is an article about wikis and their enterance into the defense community. I believe it gives more power to wikipedia since it shows the power of wikis and the new levels they are reaching. --Mike 19:46 July 25, 2005 (UTC) user's only logged in contribution was to Talk:SmartCOP; this edit actually done by 157.127.124.134 (talk · contribs) and 157.127.124.141 (talk · contribs)
-
- Please sign your edits. --Durin 02:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Durin. Ken 20:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I work for the Navy and use wikipedia for research. The military now sees the use of wikis as a valuable asset for future command and control systems. SmartCOP will be an important element of future systems and recommend you keep this section. User:Monroe, SPAWAR Systems 10:01, 25 July 2005 no such user "Monroe"; effectively an unsigned edit by 138.163.0.42 (talk · contribs)
- Delete looks liek spam, not particularly encyclopaedic anyway jamesgibbon 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above, plus it's larger than any one page has a right to be. --Several Times 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It isn't spam. It's a direct cut/paste from [39] that cleared copyvio status (see Talk:SmartCOP). --Durin 21:01, 20 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] StephanieDeardenMCP
vanity page, non-wikified, incorrect title, personal resume Vamp:Willow 20:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wiki is not a crystal ball--Porturology 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weakest possible keep. Liberal Democrat candidates for British parliament are encyclopedic, even if they have slightly naughty-sounding consistituency names (Tooting, since you asked). But this is terribly formatted and barely coherent. Tag for cleanup--I'll work on it myself if it gets kept. Meelar (talk) 21:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, seeing as she lost along with several thousand others. Anyone can lose at an election without becoming notable. -Splash 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but what pushed me over the line to keep was that she was from a semi-major party. Only a few people can manage that. Meelar (talk) 13:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- In fairness, some 640 people managed it, one for each Constituency. In the Lib Dems' case, about 580 of them then lost. This is unverifiable owing to my anonymity, but I have stood for election for the same party (to a local council) and lost; they just rang me up and said "we're short of a candidate in this seat which we're gonna lose anyway, but want people to be able to vote for us. Fancy doing nothing at all, apart from signing on the dotted line?". So I did. And I lost, and remain non-notable. Parliament's not the same as a local council, but the selection process isn't quite as rigorous as it might be, epsecially in the unwinnable seats. -Splash 17:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- True, but what pushed me over the line to keep was that she was from a semi-major party. Only a few people can manage that. Meelar (talk) 13:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, seeing as she lost along with several thousand others. Anyone can lose at an election without becoming notable. -Splash 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, wasn't elected and has no other claim to notability. This is just a resume. -Splash 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Losing candidates for political office are not notable unless known for other things. On the basis of this, Ms Dearden isn't. Capitalistroadster 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and Cleanup. A candidate from a major party for a national legislature, even if otherwise nn probably deserves at least a stub (though not a resume). --Pyroclastic 01:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
BahleetDelete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)- Delete non-notable per Splash. Even were the article to be kept, currently it is a resume which is unacceptable. Quale 16:21, 22 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Employee Leasing and PEO Companies
Pure advertising, all from material found on the company's site. Several Times 20:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It may be interesting to have an article on Employee leasing, or a section on it at Leasing but this ad is neither. Nabla 02:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:26, 21 July 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.
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 merge into Diablo II and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rathma
gamecruft Kertrats 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong with it, needs to be expanded and formatted. If it can't be expanded then it should go alfrin 20:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Diablo 2 or Character classes in Diablo 2 or somesuch. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 21:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge I suppose. My characters a necro, though, and I didn't know what the article said, so for once I've learnt something from some gamecruft. Now, I must go and write my Wikipedia article about my character. -Splash 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Gamecruft is tolerable as long as the title does not conflict with a non-fictional subject or otherwise create confusion. If Rathma meant something outside of Diablo then I'd be more skeptical of this article, but that does not seem to be the case. -Buuneko 00:44, 21 July 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.
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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:grazingshipIV
This was not put in the log by the original nominator. --Dmcdevit·t 21:00, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Normally I don't care about user pages but this appears to be a personal attack directed against another user as well as offensive - Damicatz 23:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Leave it alone, it's in user space and isn't directed at anyone in particular. WP:NOT censored for anyone, and though this would have to go if it were in article space, it's not. -Splash 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Splash... sorta nonsense, but under 100 characters. Xoloz 04:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Can't we delete it on the grounds that all of the edits associated with the name are vandalism, and that no edits have been made from that editor since January? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete per Angr. Radiant_>|< 12:38, July 21, 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lucs
Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang guide, as official policy in WP:WIN states. drini ☎ 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as a totally non-notable neologism. How's that for alliteration, hmm? - Lucky 6.9 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delucs. Neologism. -- BD2412 talk 03:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:29, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Yobo
Uh, nonsense, right? jengod 21:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Like yob, redirect to hooliganism. Uncle G 01:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:30, 21 July 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.
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 (no valid keep votes) -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Annee Pai Gaee
I tried multiple variant spellings, but Google turned up nothing. Hoax? DS 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn foreign phrase. JamesBurns 08:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. So is "ciao". It is understandable that discussions of colloquial niceties of small communities are not found in research papers on the web. 19:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. And "éminence grise" as well. Anyway, I can think of lots of fragments of useful knowledge which can not be found by search engines. That does not mean that they should not be part of a body of knowledge, especially one such as an encyclopedia, which should err on the side of inclusiveness instead of the other way around.
- 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.
[edit] Sashanan
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] BBC Radio 4 History
Not an encyclopædia entry, just points to a website (it's supposed to be about radio programmes). Orphaned. Not worth merging IMO, there's more info already on BBC Radio 4 and its list of programming. Joe D (t) 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unnecessary. Flowerparty 23:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 08:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Brief article about a very useful resource. If it's orphaned, this can be remedied by linking to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Merge into BBC Radio 4 - The Time Killer
- 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rovergate
Neologism. 90 google, 0 google news.-- BMIComp (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Plame affair. Redirects are cheap after all. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 22:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless the scandal expands to include a dog. CDC (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think anyone's looking for "Rovergate". This is the first I've heard of that neologism. Rovegate, maybe. Fernando Rizo 02:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I've heard "Rovegate" on talk radio, but not this one, so it must go. -- BD2412 talk 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete it's just a place for a POV rant. If it catches on (unlikely), add it back. --rob 21:55, 21 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Peg_Kerr
This is a vanity page written by one livejournal user for another, as evidenced by reading this blog posting about it. I could easily write myself up as equally sensitive and ambitious. Alterego 22:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete proof that vanity doesn't absolutely always have to be written by the article subject. Good catch, Alt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
- Keep - I thought it'd be crap too, until I saw that she's published two novels, one of which was nominated for a Mythopoeic Award, pushes her above the line of notability. DS 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Having two novels published is a claim to notability especially when one was nominated for a reasonably significant award. Article is now in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Appears to be notable. JamesBurns 08:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - it may have been started by a friend but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have a reason to be on here. Certainly, it is in need of expansion, but not deletion. Tinderblast 17:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - it was started by a fan of the author - but surely that's to be expected? Agree with DS that PK is notable enough to deserve an entry. Zhasper 00:26, 31 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Memethics
Neologism for new philosophy. Google brings up only 19 unique hits for it, none of them including the names of the philosophers who supposedly inspired it. [40]. Willmcw 22:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC) PS The article on Nathan Braun, an activist/writer/philosopher/theologian/ethicist in his mid-20s, was written by the same editor. It says, "He founded memethics, the art and science of analyzing ethical and moral ideas, though it is not an academically-regonized discipline." [sic] If even the editor/subject(?) admits that it is un-"regonized", who are we to change that? -Willmcw 23:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is nothing notable or exceptionable about someone inventing a word. The topic itself goes back to Plato. KSchutte 02:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Kaibabsquirrel 02:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
suggest not delete, but limit access to the page. the field will eventually spawn something. might as well keep it in to allow for documentation of the fields growth. (this writer suggest memethics could encompass fields such as racism and other "isms"/humor/hate/love/anthropology/social dynamics/information exchange/...ect)
- 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Socialism (disambiguation)
del as wrong usage of the technical page. Merge the text wherever suitable. This is no way a disambig page, by the definition of the notion: wikipedia:disambiguation. The closest possible destination is the section Socialism#Branches of socialism. mikka (t) 22:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. JamesBurns 08:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The page is useless, and its content is already present in the article on socialism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the other pages are about something called socialism and some are completely unrelated. magicOgre 19:22, 29 July 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] United Monarchy
I have merged United Monarchy with Kingdom of Israel, making the former obsolete - Nik42 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a bad move. If anything, the United Monarchy is the logical precursor to the Kingdom of Judah since Solomon's son ruled Judah and the capital was maintained as Jerusalem. Still, I think the United Monarchy needs its own article and should not be merged. User:Cypherx 12:51pm, 6 June 2005
- Keep and unmerge! FunkyChicken! 06:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as its own article. This is a distinct concept. Binadot 16:49, 21 July 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.
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 merge and redirect to USS Liberty incident -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] USS LIBERTY
keep it (unsigned vote, possibly by 70.104.132.28 considering this is his/her only contribution and it was done so anonymously) ETA: Yup, definitely was that IP address. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete it! The attack on USS Liberty deserves an article which it has got (USS Liberty incident), but right now it's this is only a collection of quotes. Really, really substandard and redundant.--itpastorn 20:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete it. Clearly partisan as well as redundant. Bozoid 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV fork, Wikiquote material at best. - Mustafaa 23:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to USS Liberty (AGTR-5) Capitalistroadster 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Also, please sign your votes. Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- did anyone consider transwiki to Wikiquote? Since it is a bunch of quotes... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect USS Liberty (AGTR-5) --LouieS 15:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect USS Liberty incident --JIPrugh 15:00, 30 July 2005 (PST) I agree that this information should be redirected, but to the article on the USS Liberty incident. These quotes should not be deleted since they are very relevant to the controversy over whether or not the attack on the Liberty was accidental or not.
- Merge quotes into the controversy section of USS Liberty incident and then redirect this page to USS Liberty (AGTR-5). The quotes are worth preserving (assuming they are validated) in the article on the incident. The page title itself is more relevant to the ship and therefore should redirect there. Tobycat 05:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect. Why does wikipedia need to have case sensitive titles? What is gained by this? jucifer 06:30, 3 August 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Baboon Balls
wikipedia is not a rumour-mill, source must be shown Jamster 23:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Del. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. mikka (t) 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge anything useful (and factual) with Red Hot Chili Peppers until this album is actually released. 23skidoo 00:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per mikka. (Though I am a big RHCP fan...) Thorns Among Our Leaves 01:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect, it reads like a copyvio press release, but I can't find the source. --nixie 01:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 08:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I posted it as an intentionally stupid rumor to show how gullable many Chili Peppers fans are. Some people believed it, I proved my point and this page has outlived its purpose. Get rid of it.
- Delete and fifty lashes with a wet noodle for the anon poster just above. Xaa 00:16, 29 July 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.
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 no consensus to delete as one of the votes was conditional, and no indication has been provided on whether the new edit meets that condition -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Skopactel
Advertisement/vanity from a small web-design/marketing firm that IMO is not notable. Delete. -- Marcika 23:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Reads like an ad. Major rewrite required, or if not done, delete. Note that they do have several real Google results (see: [53]) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- mild keep. They seem to do quite a bit of business in a niche sector. I've added some more information culled from Consumed Crustacean's google search, and wikified a bit. Probably a valid stub now. seglea 00:17, 4 August 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.
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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] stuycom.net
- Disclaimer: I go to Stuy. But stuycom has an Alexa ranking in the 225,000s and is used by virtually no one other than current Stuy students. By the Wikipedia:Websites policy it's not notable. Delete.Pyroclastic 23:58, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the original post. This only effect students of this place, it has no notability to the outside world. At least none is established at all in the article, and I doubt it can be. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. drini ☎ 01:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn website. JamesBurns 08:44, 21 July 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.
