Talk:Enigma Titanium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was proposed for deletion by UnitedStatesian (talk · contribs) in the past • It was seconded by Ukexpat (talk · contribs) • It was contested by Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) |
[edit] Creation
I created this page so that this list would show it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bicycle_manufacturing_companies why should Enighma Titanium Limited not be listed ? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am afraid that is not a valid argument against deletion. Please take a look at: WP:N, WP:Notability (organizations and companies), WP:RS and WP:V for guidelines on notability and sources. If the subject of the article is not notable or claims of notability cannot be verified by reliable sources, the article will be deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the page Bridgestone from the list. That is not anymore accomplished than Enigma. The list has been in general done as a list of all bicycle companies, not as a list of prominent and accomplished companies. If my page contradicts the rules of Wikipedia, I demand that you go through that list and put your speedy deletion banner on all those other articles too. I cannot accept that you ignore the other pages while make me lose for your rules. Also, I don't accept that Wikipedia categorizes companies as accomplished. For the sake of fairness and neutrality, Wikipedia must treat all articles of commercial companies the same way. It is impossible for anyone on Wikipedia to separate the companies like you do. I oppose such rules which give the rule makers an upper hand in defining what gets publicity. I will copy this debate on my discussion page and on the list. Tell me how does the article defy the rules of Wikipedia? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's all about notability -- the Bridgestone article asserts the company's notability and provides proper reliable sources per WP:RS to support that assertion. Please take a look at the policies and guidelines that I referred to above. Please also note that "it should be here" is not a valid argument against delete nor is other stuff exists. I will post a welcome message on your talk page with a list of helpful stuff to read. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Assertion of notability: What if I referred to the two reviews listed in the external links and told how there the bikes are gaining reputation, that according to this article drivers speak positively about Enigma and that both articles critically dorse Enigma? Would that be enough? Otherwise I simply don't have the resources to found my claims. I thought you can make articles on Wikipedia without having sources. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you had read WP:RS you would have no basis for your claim that "I thought you can make articles on Wikipedia without having sources." Reliable sources supporting notability are a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I am not going to debate this any further - it's up to an admin to decide whether this article should be deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you choose to give up your right to participate in this, you're free to do so. I can't read that page unless you tell me what I should read on it. I have the right to do what I see important, not run around your suspicious megapages full of text and not talking back at you. Now, I think that Wikipedia works so that even people like me who don't have massive resources to draw on can create pages and other similar people can add all judicial sources etc. That is simple bureaucratic and technocratic ballast of this kind of open and accessible encyclopedia, and it prevents Wikipedia from working at all. It smells like concentration of power and resources into the hands of your kind of specialists. I created Tata_OneCAT and it was even shorter than Enigma Titanium Limited and had no sources. Friendly people and small users brought the sources little by little and it all went just fine without ukexpat. Who is this guy anyway? Some control freak faction of Wikipedia? I'm waiting for his answer about details how is my article in contradiction with the rules and does my proposition suffice. Stop evading the question! Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you had read WP:RS you would have no basis for your claim that "I thought you can make articles on Wikipedia without having sources." Reliable sources supporting notability are a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I am not going to debate this any further - it's up to an admin to decide whether this article should be deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Assertion of notability: What if I referred to the two reviews listed in the external links and told how there the bikes are gaining reputation, that according to this article drivers speak positively about Enigma and that both articles critically dorse Enigma? Would that be enough? Otherwise I simply don't have the resources to found my claims. I thought you can make articles on Wikipedia without having sources. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's all about notability -- the Bridgestone article asserts the company's notability and provides proper reliable sources per WP:RS to support that assertion. Please take a look at the policies and guidelines that I referred to above. Please also note that "it should be here" is not a valid argument against delete nor is other stuff exists. I will post a welcome message on your talk page with a list of helpful stuff to read. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the page Bridgestone from the list. That is not anymore accomplished than Enigma. The list has been in general done as a list of all bicycle companies, not as a list of prominent and accomplished companies. If my page contradicts the rules of Wikipedia, I demand that you go through that list and put your speedy deletion banner on all those other articles too. I cannot accept that you ignore the other pages while make me lose for your rules. Also, I don't accept that Wikipedia categorizes companies as accomplished. For the sake of fairness and neutrality, Wikipedia must treat all articles of commercial companies the same way. It is impossible for anyone on Wikipedia to separate the companies like you do. I oppose such rules which give the rule makers an upper hand in defining what gets publicity. I will copy this debate on my discussion page and on the list. Tell me how does the article defy the rules of Wikipedia? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
<---- Outdent for legibility. It's not my problem if you refuse to read and abide by WP guidelines and policies. This is a simple situation: You created the article, I nominated it for deletion, you have objected, I have directed you to the relevant guidelines and policies in an attempt to help you. An admin will make the decision as to deletion, and I am quite happy to abide by that decision. Also, please do not stoop to making ad hominem comments. Civility is another cornerstone of WP - I have been civil to you, and expect the same in return. – ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have declined speedy deletion for this page. I think that both of you make valid points and it may be best to have a wider community discussion about the future of this article. Jon513 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great. One point for me ;) Now Mr. Ukexpat, a lawyer, I have a right to refuse reading any of your sources and that does not mean that I will lose any rights concerning this article. As I said, I need to talk here rather than try to go to a law school because if I did what you wanted, I would probably either quit or find learning all those rules so difficult that you could claim a right to lead the deletion due to my incompetence. I don't think that any Wikipedia user has a right to require knowledge of the rules before creating pages. The simple fact that you are refusing to explain the rules to me really points to your malicious and offensive attitude and your attempt to manipulate everyone here to accept your will. Does this ad hominem analysis address the issue more? ;) Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- So do you flagrantly ignore the rules of all the organisations in which you participate? The policies and guidelines are there for a reason, if you choose to ignore them, that's up to you but sooner or later the WP community will take action to deal with that. I have been civil to you throughout our debate here, if you persist in your incivility and baseless allegations towards me, I will have no option but to report your behaviour in the appropriate forum. – ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Given that this is related to the reason why Enigma Titanium should be deleted, your strange reason for doing this, which you haven't explained in any way, seem to be that you believe every user on Wikipedia should be totally aware and abiding to the rules, and you even demand that all articles that have not been created according to that should be disallowed. Rules are not perfect and even Wikipedia works beyond the rules in some extent. I am not purposely breaking the rules but just creating articles unaware and for the benefit of everyone. I also believe that you are isolated in your belief and that other members of the welcoming committee don't expect laws to dictate all user activity. I also believe, even though I don't have the time to go through all of them, that there is a rule in Wikipedia which allows creating the Enigma Titanium page, regardless of your critisism. Therefore, I'm not worried. I think I've been able to keep you isolated because now this issue will be discussed by others as well. I am also shocked to find that you tried to seem as if you could decide by yourself that this article needs to be deleted. Only when I spoke against it, you claimed to let the 'admin' decide. It would have been good for ukexpat if an inexperienced user like myself would have simply concluded that it is the Wikipedia authority which denies my article and admitted defeat. You are not the one to decide and I have to say no more. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- So do you flagrantly ignore the rules of all the organisations in which you participate? The policies and guidelines are there for a reason, if you choose to ignore them, that's up to you but sooner or later the WP community will take action to deal with that. I have been civil to you throughout our debate here, if you persist in your incivility and baseless allegations towards me, I will have no option but to report your behaviour in the appropriate forum. – ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great. One point for me ;) Now Mr. Ukexpat, a lawyer, I have a right to refuse reading any of your sources and that does not mean that I will lose any rights concerning this article. As I said, I need to talk here rather than try to go to a law school because if I did what you wanted, I would probably either quit or find learning all those rules so difficult that you could claim a right to lead the deletion due to my incompetence. I don't think that any Wikipedia user has a right to require knowledge of the rules before creating pages. The simple fact that you are refusing to explain the rules to me really points to your malicious and offensive attitude and your attempt to manipulate everyone here to accept your will. Does this ad hominem analysis address the issue more? ;) Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- The rules of this organisation clearly state that if anyone contests deletion of an article with a proposed deletion tag then it should not be deleted by this procedure. Teemu Ruskeepää is contesting deletion, so I am removing the prod tags. I would also suggest that Ukexpat read WP:BITE. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Nice to see that my assumption was correct about the rules. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
