Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was normal keep.  :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mancs

This article was nominated for deletion yesterday, but it was made a "speedy keep" after very little discussion. I re-nominated it for deletion because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards. As noted on it's discussion page, the article is not sourced. The single source in the article is in Hungarian. The small section of the source that is in English makes no mention of the subject of the article.

Also, (as I noted in my comments on the discussion page) why is this dog notable?

This article would probably be wiki material if it was just improved. Real sources and some kind of evidence that the dog is notable is a must. I'm not trying to be a jerk, let's just make sure the article meets the standards. Sam1174 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) — Sam1174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note The discussion of the first AFD nomination is here. TheronJ 18:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD again?

  • Again I urge a speedy keep -
  • The dog is up on google (you have to dig - "Mancs" is also UK abbrev for Manchester)
  • Another source can be found here [1]
  • Not worthy of an article? Is saving human life around the world not quite enough merit?
  • The 2nd AfD is ONCE AGAIN put up by an SPA.
...and it *is* a nice little article. A keeper. Istvan 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just becouse you don't find this dog by searching for "Mancs" on google on the first page, doesn't mean anything.

  • the name is just 5 characters long, so you can find a lot of other meanings
  • Mancs is a common name for dogs, so search for the full name instead.
  • If you don't know this dog, it doesn't mean that it is not famous. For example, lot of people in the USA don't know where Hungary, or other european states are, so we should delete those articles too?

We should have copied the previous discussion on this page to the article's talk page. To renominate it for deletion was not a fair thig to do, as I noticed nearly everybody (except the nominator) voted for keeping it. You should have mentioned your arguments for deletion on the talk page, before renominating it. You just nominated it, without asking anybody.

Keep it. --V. Szabolcs 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should stay. That being said, additional sources would be nice. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. As I've mentioned, the dog is famous in Hungary and he saved lots of lives abroad too. – Alensha  talk 19:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but improve." It is probably a worthy entry, but it needs improvement. It definitely needs sources (in English). I also disagree about the speedy keep. The article has issues that should have been addressed prior to removing it's nomination for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.45.129 (talk • contribs)
    • comment: It was a speedy keep because it was on the main page and someone found a rule that those articles can be speedily kept. Now we can discuss it... – Alensha  talk 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

some sites mentioning him in English (I did not want to put all of them into the article since some of them mention him in a passing sentence only, others are from blogs etc.)

– Alensha  talk 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is a bad faith nomination by an SPA [2] and all votes to delete (save one) are either unsigned, SPAs or IP addresses (plural used very loosely here). Pure mischief. Someone who doesnt like dogs maybe? This is a completely noncontroversial keep. Istvan 13:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep although I was surprised to see a stub on Main Page. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep It's a nice article, and when the article about the Rescue Team itself will be written it might become more interesting in "context".--Dami 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Here's the Deal... I nominated it for deletion the second time. I don't necessarily think the article should be deleted, but it definitely did not meet Wiki standards when I read it on the main page. I saw that it had been nominated for deletion and then "speedy kept" all within an hour, without any legitimate discussion. That's simply not right. The article was UNSOURCED! It was a stub, and a poor stub at that. I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I had one of my articles nominated, and I didn't like it. In hindsight, however, my article didn't meet the standards. I fixed it (with the help of some other people), and now the article is a good article. I didn't nominate this article because I wanted it to be deleted, I nominated it because I wanted it to be improved. Without the attention that it got by being nominated for deletion, it wouldn't have gotten the attention that it needed to be improved. Martylunsford 02:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Mancs was nominated for deletion the second time by user:Sam1174 on that account's first edit. You state above that you in fact made the nomination. Why then not in your own name? Why hide your identity? If you wanted Mancs to be improved and not deleted, then why not edit it or simply put some such request on the talk page? It got speedy keep because others thought it met standards (sometimes "short" equals "concise" and not "stub" and it WAS sourced). Nobody here put any of your stuff up for AfD (that I know of), so why the provocation? Istvan 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable dog. Yomanganitalk 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly Speedy as a WP:SNOW situation. Though I personally don't see any notability for a dog, the nominator is basically a single purpose account (who even asserts this would be wiki material if it were improved), unless you believe Martylunsford, in which case the nomination was not to get it deleted but to get it improved... which, if true, is a blatent misuse of AfD and the editor should be warned against doing that again. Either way, there simply is no valid reason being advanced here to delete this article.--Isotope23 14:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there's a public statue of it, it can have an encyclopedia article IMO. Sockatume 17:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just because I can. I object to the common practice of discounting an AfD, (or anything else for that matter) because of the nominator or editor's lack of an edit history. When I first started editing at wikipedia, I was accused of being an SPA, and told that my opinion was to be ignored several times. It is an elitist attitude, and should be reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of a conflict of interest. Does anyone really think that the nominator has a personal axe to grind against this dog? Crockspot 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the nominator's lack of history isn't what is troubling... what is troubling is the fact that the nominator put forth no reason for deletion other than a vague "...does not appear to meet Wikipedia standards", a claim that a native language source isn't good enough, and then states that this could be a Wikipedia article if this was cleaned up. To me, that completely invalidates the nomination to delete. I'm not trying to WP:BITE here; I'd probably be even harsher if this was an established editor because in that case they should know better. If expecting an AfD nomination to clearly state a good reason for deletion without stating the article just needs to be improved is "elitist" than I am as bourgeoisie as they come.--Isotope23 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but do not speedy, it doesn't appear to meet any speedy standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, just because I can. I object to the practice of someone renominating an article for AfD simply because they didn't like the outcome of a prior AfD. Nothing has changed in the article since yesterday, there's no new reasoning for deletion, and, as the nominator himself states: "This article would probably be wiki material if it was just improved". So put a note in it that it needs improvement and leave it be. Sparkhead 18:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mancs obviously is about as notable as a working dog can get. (For a scholarly reference to the furry guy, see my recent addition to his article[3]). Now for a bunch of thoughts:
  • There's nothing wrong with either the speedy keep or the renomination. Per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability, clause 6, pages should not be nominated while on the main page. Therefore, it was perfectly appropriate to speedy keep while Mancs was a front-page item, and perfectly appropriate to re-nominate once he wasn't.
  • On the other hand, I wish people would stop attacking the nom as an SPA or for having "bad faith" -- the RFD shouldn't turn on whether or not the nom sucks, and debating that issue here isn't constructive to the discussion.
  • On the gripping hand, the nom is wrong -- AFD shouldn't be an accellerated clean-up request. Mancs looks reasonably notable, so at the very least, it would have been a good idea to engage in more talk page discussion asking for verifiable evidence of his notability.
Thanks, TheronJ 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Good doggie! *Pat on the head* up+land 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep verified sources don't have to be easy. If you can't assume good faith, learn hungarian. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bizarre.--MONGO 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously --Guinnog 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ignoring the fact that this is the second single-purpose account nomination, the only "delete" is a WP:POINT vote to demonstrate that SPA's can be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) 22:14, September 30, 2006
  • Strong Keep as bad faith nom by SPA. If it wasn't for the fact that I closed the first AfD, I'd close this one. If I was an admin, I'd go ahead and close this one anyway. --Aaron 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith nomination? Your original speedy keep was a bad faith speed keep. I explained my reasons for the second nomination, but my primary reason was that the original article, which did not meet wiki standards, was speedy kept by you. If you had simply allowed the discussion to take place, the article would have been improved and there would have been no need for the second nomination. The people who are voting to keep it now are looking at the improved article. Of course they are going to vote to keep it. If they had looked at it a week ago, it wouldn't have been so clear-cut. Martylunsford 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: See, Marty, comments like yours are exactly why admins tend to discount the comments of SPA's, IP editors and those with low edit counts when closing AfDs: Because even when their statements are made in good faith, they usually don't have enough knowledge of AfD procedures, or procedures anywhere else on Wikipedia, to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. In your case, I will point you to WP:SK, which explicity states the following as one of the seven scenarios under which an AfD is to be closed as a speedy keep: The article is currently linked to on the Main Page. Please wait until it is not there before starting a deletion discussion. Mancs was linked to on the front page, it was wrongly put up for an AfD, and I thus closed the AfD as a speedy keep in good faith and in full compliance with Wikipedia's AfD guidelines. Secondly, I will point out to you that it is considered out of process to nominate an article for deletion simply because you think it needs improvement, at least not before slapping some sort of {{cleanup}} tag on it and giving other editors a reasonable amount of time to take action on it (and a lot of admins would argue it's never a proper reason to nominate). --Aaron 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Nothing wrong with a Hungarian source. If you doubt the source, just go over to the translation group and ask someone to read it. Kick ass dog. Derex 01:02, 2 October 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.