- 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
List of J-pop artists
- List of J-pop artists ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
- Also, all related articles here
There is no reason why this article cannot be covered by a Category:J-pop artists. Delete as unmanageable listcruft and being completely redundant. Additional reasoning: at least 60% of the mentioned people are not notable enough to have their own article and there is no use in having their names on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Keep, I think there is precedent that we can have both. Lists can do things that categories can't--such as have both romanji and kanji/kana. It's easier and nicer to browse than a category in many ways.
gren
グレン 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category.
Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- In categories you may have to go "next 200" several times before finding what you want. On a list you just have to scroll down. Also lists allow for annotation and red-links. The red-links on the list could include significant J-Pop artists. Japanese people are, surprisingly, underrepresented at Wikipedia when you consider that Japan is a large and modern nation.-- T. Anthony 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't going to use T. Anthony's argument... but... In a category you will see a link to Hitomi Yaida. On a list page you can see "Hitomi Yaida (矢井田瞳)" You may not think that's a big deal... but, it can be useful I believe. Lists are more versatile and I just don't see a reason to delete it. gren グレン 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find that being split up into 26 articles is less convenient than pressing a button a few times. I also don't see how catering to lazy users is a reason for keeping such articles. Also, if an artist is notable enough, an article will be created for him/her/them. If not, then including a red link does nothing but spam up Wikipedia when some random obsessed fan decides to clog up the AfD process by writing an article about a non-notable musician.
Axem Titanium 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Red-links can help when you're interested in improving coverage of a style of music even if you don't know every individual in it. For example I found List of jazz pianists and List of Brazilian musicians useful in starting articles. I saw a name I wasn't familiar with and then checked if it was notable at music sites I know. Then on creating it the article is now available for those who know more. That's how the article on George Cables got started.-- T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll concede that, but the article gives this website as the source for most of the names. If nothing else, that link can be saved while the rest can be deleted and each musician judged on a case-by-case basis. Axem Titanium 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As there is no kanji/kana names in the list right now, we have no way to argue for or against such an addition because we don't know what it will look like. Also, the threshold of "J-POP" is not defined well in the list. Remember, J-POP covers rock, soul, R&B, and other genres, so it's a very wide category.
ColourBurst 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is valid, the topic may be too broad for a list.-- T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category.
Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - indiscriminate listcruft, no threshhold for inclusion. MER-C 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete List also seems like it could end up being very very long; Japan is a populous country, I'm sure there have been a LOT of bands and singers there over the years that could be called "j-pop". -- Brianyoumans 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article - appears to be just a list? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Valrith 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomm. Saganaki- 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Indiscriminate list that's better served by a category. The kana argument is invalid. There are two or three entries on the list which use kana. It's not a big loss. The red link argument is invalid as these titles can be added to the Japan requested articles red link farm where they can be properly fed and looked after: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan. -- Kunzite 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I think both gren's kana/kanji argument and the red link argument are valid. It does serve good as a good starting point when I find wikipedia has zero information on a particular artist. Also converting this to a category is uncessary since it is largely covered by
Category:Japanese musicians and
Category:Japanese musical groups. This list should be preserved for the unique value it presents not available in these categories. -
rydia 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, guess what? This is EN Wikipedia, not a place to cater to Japanophile interests. Most people will not know the Japanese kana or kanji. Per User:Kunzite, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to store red links and since this list has zero information on any artist besides the name, this article is a terrible place to start research on them. A sub-category for J-pop musicians is entirely feasible too. In conclusion, this list does nothing unique. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I always use this list over the wiki generated category list because the wiki category generated list sucks. Delete that one how am I suppose to know what Jap related artists I need to be working on if there isn't a list like this to fucking tell me. Let's get back to writing articles instead of nit picking the hell out of wikipedia.
ColenFace 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Way to be civil. As User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links like this. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, better served by a category, IMO. My reasons aren't much different from those discussed above. Recury 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't delete this way better than category.
WaynGravy 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—
WaynGravy (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No reasoning behind this? I guess not. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How can they be deleting list. Please DONT DELETE LIST.
Azininvasive 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—
Azininvasive (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Same here, huh? Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I personally like using this list I find it much easier to use than the categorical method. I don't see why we can't just keep both and let the user decide which they would rather use. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
CanadianJohn1972 (
talk •
contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC).—
CanadianJohn1972 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- HAY LOOK! Another single purpose account! Anyway, is there any reason you'd like to impart upon us as to why it's easier besides, of course, that "it just is"? Having both is completely redundant. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as the list can hold red links to be filled later, while a category cannot. —
coelacan
talk — 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Finally! Not a single purpose account! Anyway, as User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links than this page. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a bad point, however, in a list like this the red links already have information by way of being in the list. It invites any J-Pop fan to go ahead and fill them in. Over at the requested articles thing, you've got some nipponophiles who might do it, but this draws a more specific crowd. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is that a bad thing? Notability is difficult to judge when one is a rabid otaku-fan so perhaps it would be better to let the so-called experts at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan (who may or may not be Japanophiles) to start stubs on notable people instead of letting over-zealous fans do the work and end up having their favorite artist on AfD. Anonymous editors are also not allowed to start articles anymore, just FYI. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed.
Bilaber 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—
Bilaber (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oh darn. I guess I got my hopes up that someone could come up with a reasonable argument for inclusion. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with everything that Coelacan said. --
Stzr3 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A category would work just fine here. There are almost no annotations, and redirects can be used to cover alternate spellings in the few cases where there are. Redundant categories (like having the same person in Category:Japanese musicians and the new category) can be avoided by making the new category a sub-category of the pre-existing ones (sort of like how Category:Wives of Brigham Young is a sub-category of Category:Polygamists. Don't ask, it was just the first example that popped into my head...) and putting the people in the sub-category. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: 74.101.255.108 ( talk) was just previously solicited many votes with the text "Save the List! They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!!" Furthermore, they are impersonating Bilaber ( talk • contribs). Please take this into consideration when closing the discussion. -- Iamunknown 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Red links to nonexisting articles are useful. Seeing the performer's name in romaji and kanji together is useful. Neier 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the 26 sub lists though. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to refer again to
User:Kunzite's argument that
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take
Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原 めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category.
Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The title of the article is what appears in the listing, regardless of what you type in the catsort section of the category on the article page. The text entered in the catsort section is used only for sorting within the category, and nothing else. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, I like how the reasoning has changed since the AFD was opened. "not notable enough to have their own article" has morphed to "well, list them someplace else". So, are all red links in articles a bad idea? Red links should just be added to a project which may or may not be accessed by the users who read the article (list) and would otherwise have an incentive to create new information for Wikipedia? And the premise that there is no room for both categories and lists for a topic has been debated many times in the past, and judging from the 110 lists in Category:Lists of musicians by genre alone, I would have to assume that there must be a good reason to keep both the lists and categories. Adding kanji to the name in the categorization is an interesting idea (a rarity for AFD lately, it seems), and I think I'll bring that up at WP:MOS-JA where Japanese naming conventions are discussed. It still wouldn't change the fact that the list is useful. The 26 sub-lists are less useful, and I agree that they can be deleted, because they duplicate info on the main list. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added that addendum because
User:T. Anthony explained that some notable artists may not have articles simply because of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-English speaking subjects. The notability of a person is independent of the state of having an article and I changed my argument to say that this list is not the proper place where articles should be requested and that
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is the proper place to do that.
Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on
Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
- 1-Easier to access for most people, particularly those interested in a topic.
- 2-Often made by people interested in the subject.
- That said I'm not happy with some lobbying I've seen on this.-- T. Anthony 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on
Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
- I'm going to refer again to
User:Kunzite's argument that
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take
Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原 めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category.
Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Lists can be more informative than categories, by adding more information than a simple article title, and by arranging the subjects in a more informative way than a category can. However, beyond the red links, this list does not yet take advantage of the advantages a list can have over a category. Keep, but make the list more useful.
Dekkappai 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Categories can have organization too. It's not too difficult to simply have sub-cats for a Category:J-pop artists which would include things like Category:J-rock artists, or the like. In that way, the categories could organize the articles in the same way you mentioned, if not better. For example, if someone wanted to find other visual kei artists, they could simply click on the sub-cat "Visual kei artists" and be linked to all the other artists in that group. However, unless you want to spam the link to this article on every single J-pop artist's page, it would be difficult to locate this page in the first place and even then, it would be difficult to find the artist you're looking for. If there's something else you'd like to add, please do. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, with stipulations (Edit conflict) This list has the potential to be useful, but needs some serious work first. First and foremost, the list needs to be renamed, to something along the lines of Japanese musical artists. It includes not only J-pop artists, but it also claims to include
J-Rock,
Visual Kei, and
Japanese hip hop artists as well. Second, loose the sublists. All the information contained in them can be found in the main article, really the only reason for a sublist in this case would be if the page over the size limit, which it is not. If there are any sublists to be in there, I would say that this should be made into a hierachical list, because the list says it includes 4 distinct genres. Third, the article needs to have some serious clean-up work done. Mainly, it directly conflicts with
WP:MOS-JA, specifically the section on
modern names by going in Japanese, rather than Western order. If people have a problem with all the red links, there probably wouldn't be any problem with them being summarily moved over to
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan; somebody wanted them, might as well see if someone can make a decent article on them. I personally don't have a problem with them, though,
List of violinists has plenty of red links, and its more well-done than this list. Finally the list should definantly note that it is incomplete; I'm sure that some of the Japanese musical artists we have on Wikipedia who fall into the genres covered by this list. --
Lim
e
tom 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You go on about how it is too broad and doesn't follow certain style guidelines but do you have any specific reasons as to why a category would not be suitable for the same purpose? Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I never said that it was too broad, just improperly titled. I find that lists are generally tend to be, when well-maintained, much more user-friendly, which is the basis of why I feel it should be kept. It needs clean-up, but lists have value in that it make it more accessable for the average user. If you take note, most musical genres have both lists of aritsts within them and categories relating to them; this seems to be standard in almost every single case. To give a very abbreviated list, see List of metalcore bands and Category:Metalcore musical groups, List of death metal bands and Category:Death metal musical groups, List of jazz musicians and Category:Lists of jazz musicians, etc. There doesn't seem to be any reason why there cannot both be a list and a category. Each serve their own purpose, and there really isn't any reason why you can't have both. -- Lim e tom 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from
Most Precious Blood to
Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better.
Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Umm no. When I first started here lists were easier for me. I'd heard of listing things well before I came here and Encyclopedias themselves have index. In addition to that type Jazz pianists and you get redirected to List of jazz pianists. Or if you prefer type in "heavy metal bands" and you will get redirected to List of heavy metal bands. Now if I'm thinking "who is that jazz pianist whose obituary I saw in 2001?", how is a category going to help me? I mean assuming I don't want to go through the entire category to find out when each one died.-- T. Anthony 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think all those lists fail to grasp what it means to actually be a list, by Wikipedia's standards. Now, let's take a look at a list that isn't redundant with its category: List of HIV-positive people. While Category:HIV-positive people exists and is useful, this list goes beyond simply listing the name for the sake of having that person's name there. It provides a substantial amount of useful information that can't be achieved with a category and is also well-referenced. In its current state, this and all the other list articles that have been mentioned fail to justify their existence by including such information that a list would be required at all. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from
Most Precious Blood to
Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better.
Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's not about how long it is, it's about the J-Pop artists! I'm sorry if i sound stupid, but I believe we need to keep this list, because i've used it before, and it is very helpful, sometimes I try to find new and exciting bands using this very list. What would be the main point of destoying it? Would it be to long? There are plenty of other categories where the list is far more longer than this mere list, eg. The
List of famous left-handed people is one such example.
Blkeddie! 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if this article does not exist that they will be any less than J-pop artists? Do you have any specific reasons why a list is preferable to a category? The presence of another list does not justify this one's. It simply means that someone with a critical eye has not yet questioned its value. I can say right now that I can see myself nominating that article for deletion in preference to a category as well. Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For whatever its worth, after far too much work I took the red links out of the article, and made it conform to WP:MOS-JA naming conventions. -- Lim e tom 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say keep There's a lot of good that can be derived from an exhaustive list of J-Pop artists. I think it can really help promote modern popular Japanese music and give people a better look at all the various artists. So that people know there's more to the modern music than Gackt and Malice Mizer.
Maikeru Go 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remember, Wikipedia is not an advertisement. We are not here to "promote" anything, only document existing notable things. This "keep" is based entirely on false premises. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A lot of Japanese artists may not be notable enough to have their own articles, but they’re worth being mentioned anyway, in case someone wants to do research about them or look up a name. Categories only list artists that have their own articles – that is, only the “notable” ones – while omitting a lot of names. ～
Michelle 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would disagree. If they're not notable enough for their own article, why should their name be mentioned at all in a professional encyclopedia? There are enough fansites that can do that. Also, what kind of research would you be able to do here if all that's mentioned is a name? If we were to go by your criteria, then the list would be nearly endless since there are literally thousands of non-notable J-pop artists. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as completely unmanageable. There are literally tens of thousands of J-pop artists, and more are coming out daily. A category is much better suited for keeping track of them. For any that need articles, they can be listed (along with the kanji/kana for their names and any supporting links) on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan pages. Also, J-rock is not a sub-genre of J-pop. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if this page had anything more to it than just names I'd be in favor of keeping it, but without any context for the names it really isn't very useful. YankeeDoodle14 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- split and cleanup.
Monni 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uhhhh... what? I'm not sure how that could be done. Please explain. Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Lists serve purposes that categories don't. Most importantly, they can be checked and monitored for thoroughness, which is critical to Wikipedia's mission of building a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. Splitting might be a good idea, but I'm really not sure how this list would be split. --
Visviva 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by
Wikipedia's standards. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category.
List of HIV-positive people is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category:
Category:HIV-positive people.
Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then how about instead of senselessly arguing for 4 more days about how little relevant information is contained in this list you go through ever artist and put in a table a brief summary on each artist. You know just because it isn't relevant to you doesn't mean it's not relevant to the other whatever million people that use this encyclopedia. ColenFace 08:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists, particularly item 3: "Development." I'm not saying this list couldn't be done better, but it is already a useful resource for development, and could readily be made even more valuable in that regard (for example, by adding entries from other (reliable) online J-pop lists). -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- That is roughly the point I tried to make above. A list doesn't magically begin in the best format. It has been established that lists can be done well, and just because this list is not done well, it is not suitable grounds for deletion either. Grounds for improvement, yes. I'd prefer to encourage the development of the article, not removing it because it is not up to the standards of some other lists.
Neier 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping as it stands now. The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful now, so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it.
Dekkappai 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good summary of the arguments. The list in unmanageable in scope. There are lots of J-pop artists and even if the article were cleaned up or expanded beyond a mere list of artists, it would be unmanageable, out of date, or a red link farm inviting people to submit articles for artists who really aren't notable. There are a lot of "I like it" style arguments here with people expressing a desire to keep because they find it easier to edit or keep track of a list. Those are not reasons to keep as you can easily do the same thing with a category. -- Kunzite 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- If I had to hazard a guess, I think that the number of J-Pop artists is significantly LOWER than the number of HIV infected people. I don't like making that comparison, but, since that list has been pointed to above, seems to be a good example of a list, and also seems to be managed well, claiming that the J-Pop list is unmanageable is a flawed argument.
Neier 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.
ColenFace 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- You can't do the same thing with a category. The reason for this is simple: a category is not a list; aside from the intro text and cat tags, a category is simply the result of a live database query. Thus, a category cannot be reliable monitored, because it is impossible to track when articles have been removed from a category, and for what reasons. See also Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this list is worth keeping as it stands now. It could be done better, but that applies to everything on WP. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.
ColenFace 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. And all this time, I've been trying to convince them as to why this article is redundant when their reason for keeping doesn't even hold a candle up to the official deletion policy. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping as it stands now. The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful now, so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it.
Dekkappai 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by
Wikipedia's standards. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category.
List of HIV-positive people is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category:
Category:HIV-positive people.
Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP the list. Also, what is wrong with people creating articles for artists that "aren't notable"? Who decides who is notable and who isn't? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Tuxedo Mark (
talk •
contribs) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
- Ummm... I think we do. Seriously, we have stuff like WP:MUSIC to prevent a bazillion articles about random nobodies from being created. There are 5 billion people on this planet. Not every one of them deserves an article. If you want to have an article about you on Wikipedia, go do something special and earn it. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- They're called notability guidelines. This isn't a vote, BTW. Saying "Keep" or "Delete" without providing some rationale to back it up. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. -- Kunzite 04:33, 17 December 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.
- 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 keep — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Islamic extremist terrorism
- Islamic extremist terrorism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
Fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians in an effort to be politically correct. This concept is clearly separate from the real topic it pretends to address, Islamic terrorism. The same thing applies with Zionist political violence, which should be Zionist terrorism, and "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," which should be Israeli apartheid. KazakhPol 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- While some editors might suggest moving the current page to the title Islamic terrorism, there really isnt anything worth salvaging from the current, pov, uncited mess. KazakhPol 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete I wonder these people who claim to be philosophers and intellectuals on wikipedia. Tell me, you people really dont know the hypocrisy of news media? Did you ever hear the term 'terrorism by israel'? How many times you hear the 'christian extremist terrorism' on FOX and CNN. Does one FOX, CBC and CNN comprise all the media of the world. You Americans please come out of this Bubble created by few news channels. There is more to the world than a couple of hypocrite American channels.
- Now people will think why am I criticizing in this way. My point is, there is no such thing called 'islamic terrorism' or 'islamic extremist terrorism' in under the definition which is being provided by wikipedians here. How many countries North Korea or Syria or Iran have ruined??? NONE. How many countries American regime ruined? Dozen. How many people killed by American regime? Millions. Even then there is not even a single day when the channels dont yell the self created term 'islamic terrorism'. So my point is, the same is happening on the wikipedia articles. Muslims just cant defend by correct editing because very very minor percentage of Muslims have access to the internet. Any website goes to number one in the ranke which is used by Americans , that does not comply that it is number one in the world too. Please see the www.msn.com ranking on www.alexa.com [7]. Its number second, but in non-American and non-Eu countries, nobody even thinks to visit that site. So to be fair please give value to the limited number of disagreeing people who come from technologically less developed areas. Please see this and [ this refernce before reacting to my post. VirtualEye 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep if you want to rename the page, take it to
requested moves
Tom Harrison
Talk 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uh... except that I just said I dont want to move the page. KazakhPol 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator seems to be making two arguments, that the page is uncited,
which is absurd, and that it's POV, which he's made no evident attempt to fix or address first. There's really no valid reason presented to delete this article.--
Kchase
T 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Wikipedia's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at
Terrorism in Kazakhstan,
Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
JCAM, and
HT before making such bold statements.
KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- If 40% is uncited, then add cite tags. Just because an article lacks citations for asserted facts does not mean that it is unverifiable, which then would prompt deletion. In any case, the fact that you've tried to make other articles neutral has no bearing on this article. Deleting for POV concerns comes only after thorough attempts have been made to make the article NPOV. Only irredeemably or inherently POV articles get deleted. The current POV tag was added 24 October and there has been no conversation related to that POV claim on the talk page. In fact, the tagger, User:Farhansher, hasn't posted to the talk page since placing the tag.-- Kchase T 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Wikipedia's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at
Terrorism in Kazakhstan,
Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
JCAM, and
HT before making such bold statements.
KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article is well sourced and POV issues can be addressed. TSO1D 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above and
WP:SNOW.
<<-armon->> 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had.
KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you review this. There's also the current talk page as well as four archives of "conversation" about it. In fact, I've renamed it myself. The problem is, you've put the article up for deletion on the basis that you object to it's title. Not a valid reason, so it won't happen. <<-armon->> 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had.
KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Nominator is not neutral in trying to delete this article. Nomination describes the article as fictitious, which is patently untrue given the amount of cited facts presented. Said article may have some POV issues which can be corrected. The article is on an important subject matter. While the subject matter is sensitive and objectionable to certain parties,
Wikipedia is not censored. --
Eqdoktor 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Wikipedia, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you?
KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, footnote 24 is citing a source discussing the issue. Googling "Islamic extremist terrorism " gets me a few thousand hits (not counting Wikipedia and its derivatives). This story an Islamic extremist supporting terrorism. OTH, if all it is you want is "Islamic extremist terrorism" together, your barking up the wrong tree. What you seem to object to is the words "Islamic", "extremist", "terrorist" put together in describing Islamic terrorism. I suggest a name change for the article as described below. -- Eqdoktor 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Wikipedia, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you?
KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why is there
Christian extremist terrorism and
Islamic extremist terrorism but no
Zionist extremist terrorism? Instead, there is
Zionist political violence. I see a clear double standard here. Either the Zionist article should be renamed to this convention, or the Christian and Islamic terrorism articles should be renamed to "political violence", i.e.
Christian political violence and
Islamic political violence.
WP:NPOV applies especially to cases such as this. metaspheres 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts.
KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think the article is supposed to be about extremist terrorism but terrorism by Islamic extremists, highlighting the fact that only a minority viewpoint within the religion have engaged in terrorism. If called Islamic terrorism it would suggest the entire religion engages in or supports terrorism. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a centralized discussion in an attempt to create a consensus for the naming of all three articles. That's what was attempted with the "...apartheid" articles, though I'm not sure how successful it was at achieving consensus.--
Kchase
T 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to
Islamic political violence. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at
Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is also linked above. Forcing mergers sometimes happens at AfD, but there's really no point in forcing a rename, especially with the
enormous history of controversy over the name of this article. AfD, with its five day time limit, is too quick and stressful and dirty for a rename of this article, let alone a completely different one. Also look at
User_talk:Kchase02#Religion_and_terrorism_pages, as KazakhPol may be starting a centralized discussion on the names of all the articles sometime soon.--
Kchase
T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan which resulted in a rename to
Politics of Khuzestan. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised how many AfD's can't reach consensus in five days and go through relisting, deletion review, mediation, etc. Anyway, it's unusual for a rename to happen at AfD, in part because the forum isn't necessary for that purpose. Just look at the numbers below "move" that you see at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All. Frankly, saying it's as "clear cut and simple" as whether you favor "terrorism" in the title or don't is reducing the issue to a vote. My experience through hundreds of AfD discussions has taught me that a simple vote isn't usually helpful for consensus building.-- Kchase T 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not move comments. As I have stated, the AfD process is a discussion, not a vote. metaspheres 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan which resulted in a rename to
Politics of Khuzestan. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at
Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is also linked above. Forcing mergers sometimes happens at AfD, but there's really no point in forcing a rename, especially with the
enormous history of controversy over the name of this article. AfD, with its five day time limit, is too quick and stressful and dirty for a rename of this article, let alone a completely different one. Also look at
User_talk:Kchase02#Religion_and_terrorism_pages, as KazakhPol may be starting a centralized discussion on the names of all the articles sometime soon.--
Kchase
T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to
Islamic political violence. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts.
KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. No valid reason provided for deletion. I don't see why this nominator thinks that this is a "fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians". If you don't like the title, move it. If you think it is uncited, tag it with {{fact}}, {{verify}} templates. If it is POV, tag it with {{pov}}. utcursch | talk 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a well sourced article covering a sensitive and controversial topic with much skill. This is not a fictitious concept- it simply address the issue of terrorism by Muslim extremists.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable and referenced. // Dirak 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Enigma059 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is notable and referenced, it needs to be claened up RaveenS 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Move to
Islamist terrorism. I've been always supporting this title. It certainly has more political connotations; which what the article is set for.
Islamism is not
Islam.
Extremism is not
fanaticism nor it is
radicalism. More sources and references to be added. POV can be sorted out by discussions on the talk page. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ® 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Islamist terrorism, though politically correct, is not factually correct. Does wikipedia strive to be politically correct or accurate. You can't be both, at least not in this case. All news organizations on television call it Islamic terrorism, Islamic Extremism, Islamic Fascism. Nobody calls it Islamist terrorism. For example, PBS calls is Islamic terrorism. BBC calls it Muslim terrorism. MSNBC calls it Islamic terrorism. The New York Times calls it Islamic radicalism. If we are to be factually accurate, we have to call it Islamic terrorism, and not Islamist.-- Sefringle 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, rename metaspheres is right on. These articles should be kept. But there is no justification whatsoever, other than home bias, for naming the "Christian", "Zionist" and "Islamic" forms differently. "Political violence" is probably more appropriate than "terrorism", but the most fundamental thing in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and WP:BIAS is that they be labelled the same. Anything else is hyprocrisy. Akihabara 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on rename. If these pages are to be renamed I propose the format: "terrorism by X'" or "political violence by X". Otherwise it reads as if one can commit acts of terrorism/political violence in a Christian or Islamic manner. The religion is relevant to the cause the terrorists are attempting to advance, not the acts of terrorism per se. An act of Christian terrorism would be in substance the same as an act of Islamic terrorism, but with a different objective. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- re comment Actually that was the point. However, titles like that (by X) are too heavy. I'd support Akihabara suggestion using political violence as we have a guideline (
Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism). --
Szvest
Wiki me up ® 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, no move. Articles like this make WP superior to many other info sources, even if they're controversial and under contention. My OED (Concise, 11th Ed.) defines "Islamist" as both n. and adj. but moving pages just for a usage of similar words is trite and disruptive. I also find the grounds for deletion to be FAR from neutral. Better to work on the article to make it concise, NPOV, and well cited than to complain. Deletion would IMHO be akin to the "airplane into building" method of political discourse. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; I wouldn't have a problem with this being renamed Islamic terroism, but there is no logical reason to remove this article. -- Mhking 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into
Terrorism or Political ViolenceIslamic Political Violence. -- Strothra 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)- Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ® 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. --
Szvest
- comment This page has been renamed several times as consensus has shifted. I suggest we decide here only to delete or not, and decide at requested moves about what to call it this quarter. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is cited to multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, along with sources of less quality. It is a function of editing to sort out and remove any nonreliable sources, and to remove any POV pushing. The topic is clearly of considerable importance. Edison 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keeep The topic is scholarly and has overwhelming evidence.-- Patchouli 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep & rename. Change it to Islamic terrorism.-- 71.107.224.142 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Rename it if you want but there's no way it should be deleted. -- BillyTFried 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Religious motivated terrorism (islam) Alf photoman 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Merge with religious violence and political violence per my discussion on the talk page (Who are these people that just randomly came into this AFD? How come they didn't look at the talk page first?) -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Islamic extremist terrorism is a major contribution to world affairs in the modern world. It diserves an article.-- Sefringle 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per svest. TruthSpreader Talk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hate text. Grace Note 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per utcursh and sefringle. Rename to Islamic terrorism, use less euphemistic titles for similar articles as per nom. Arrow740 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Definitely a valid topic. The politically correct at work again. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to what's happenning in the world. What hate text? The real hate is in the minds of those terrorists, there is no need to be nitpicking over this. Could be renamed to "Islamist terrorism" however. "Islamic terrorism" might not be right, however, the word "Islamist" has been used generally to refer to the earthly politics motivated by Islam. In any case, even if the content was merged with another article, the text "Islamic terrorism" deserves its own article, at least to refer to the concept and notion as referred by many in the world media.
Baristarim 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, to reply to what someone said above about "western oriented blah blah". I am Turkish and I feel that it definitely deserves to be there and I never watch FOX News. I generally watch French, Turkish and American TV, and it is used quite often. My country has also suffered from Islamist terrorism, and it is definitely not Orientalistic to say that. I am an atheist, however.. Baristarim 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Article is an unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess that lumps in a vast array of unrelated conflicts and events, most of which are essentially political and territorial in nature. The criteria for inclusion in the article seems to be "anything violent involving a Muslim and/or Arab". -- Lee Hunter 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The above also applies to the The Crusades, but with Christians (and over several hundred years ago); and yet there is no dispute over the existence of the Crusades page. I believe maintainability is not an issue as it can be controlled with present Wikipedia policies, the same with the "unencyclopedic" concern. -- Eqdoktor 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- CommentThe crusades deals with a specific historical event (actually a series of events) which is very well defined. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is whatever any editor wants to make it of it no matter how ludicrous including at various times, believe it or not, the Barbary Pirates and the PFLP (Marxist-Leninist organization). Recently there's been an endless revert war over whether to include an enormous chunk of quoted material from a US university student (reputedly a heavy stoner) who went nuts and injured some people with his car. Since the guy claims to be a Muslim and he claims that God told him to do it, therefore it's "Islamic extremist terrorism". I argued against it till I was blue in the face and finally gave up in disgust. There is NO need for this article. It's just a place for people to vent their paranoid fantasies about Islam. -- Lee Hunter 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Paranoid fantasies??? Well,
My city was blasted in the middle four times by a bunch of Islamist terrorists, and there was nothing paranoid about that monsieur. So cut down on the politically correct please. They refer to themselves as jihadists, most of the world refers to themselves as such. It is pretty arrogant to say "oh, but they are not real muslims, a "real" muslim wouldn't do that!" That's arrogant and illogical. In that case we will never be able to use adjectives anymore in any language "oh, he is not fat, he is just overweight!" Whatever.. Islamic/Islamist terrorism exists, so just get used to it.
Baristarim 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are articles about Al Qaeda, Istanbul bombing, as there should be. This article will never be anything but a Frankenstein monster sewn together from parts that don't belong. -- Lee Hunter 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete According to VirtualEye and KazakhPol above. Mak82hyd 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Valid concept, well researched and documented. -- Gabi S. 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: This is an excellent well researched article with tonnes of useful information. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion. -- Matt57 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry KazakhPol, this will end up as a keep as well. -- Matt57 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article could use some work but there's no question that the subject is encyclopedic. GabrielF 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are two related articles: Militant Islam and Islamic extremist terrorism. Because there is not much overlap between the two, I think they should remain. However, it could be better to merge them into the first one (which should be heavily edited anyway). -- Gabi S. 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Is Al Qaeda Islamic? Are they terrorists? Is 60% of world terrorism committed by Islamic groups? When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts, there will no longer be a need for this page. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Jboyler (
talk •
contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
- Comment When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts... Do you mean Islamists? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and I won't mind renaming into Islamist terrorism or Islamist political violence (both now redirect here). ← Humus sapiens ну ? 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up, add more references etc. to the extent necessary. I think the naming issue requires further discussion. 6SJ7 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename terrorism already implies extremism.
gidonb 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- On my talk page, KazakhPol asked me what I prefer as an alternative title. It is a tough cut, but I think Islamist terrorism is the best pick. gidonb 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename, but don't delete on the basis of one easily alterable aspect,
Tewfik
Talk 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment replying to KazakhPol's question on my Talk: since 'extremist' refers to the the ideology and not the act (unless there were to be an "Islamic moderate terrorism"), Islamist would seem to best fit for renaming, though a further discussion on its Talk would be the way to go in this regard. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Renaming isn't really an issue for AfD - editors can work that out at the page. WilyD 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is a violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to call anything terrorist. We can have sentences like "X claims that organization Y is terrorist...", but not something like "Organization Y is a terrorist group founded by Z". Terrorist is a pejorative term, and unacceptable as a classification in a encyclopedia. It would be akin to saying "Prominent niggers include: ..." in the introduction to the article on Nigger. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- ???? You have to do your homework better. "Terrorism" is a legally defined term by a United Nations Convention. It is not a pejorative term, it is in the same category as "murder", "rape", "theft", as defined by laws. Calling someone a murderer if he has been convicted of murder is not pejorative. There is a distinct definition of the word "terrorism" (see the relevant UN Convention) and those who commit terrorism are terrorists. It is as simple as that. I had enough of this politically correct bruhaha jumping into a wide range of articles and pretending that they know better as if the others are not aware of the bulk of human knowledge and civilization. Terrorist is not the same thing as nigger, since there is no such act "to nigger" - if there was such an act, then the people who niggerded would be niggers. However terrorism is an act, and people who "terrorize" (as defined legally by the UN) are terrorists.
Baristarim 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Using the United Nations Convention's definition of the term "terrorism" is a violation of NPOV. This is Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia that should not adhere to any points of views, and in this case the view of the United Nations. I am arguing this point because if we use "terrorist" or "terrorism" the way you intend to do so, it will contradict our very own article on Terrorism which discusses this in depth. Also, "murder", "rape", and "theft", are not internationally agreed upon crimes. In one country, an action can be "murder", while in another "manslaughter", while in yet another "justifiable homicide". by calling someone's actions murder, Wikipedia is promoting a POV, which is a violation of NPOV policy. Same goes for "rape", "sexual assault", etc. We can, however, say that "according to the UN, these are acts of terrorism" etc., but if we go and say "This is an act of terrorism", then that is impermissible as content for an article. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and has all to do with Wikipedia policy. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, please see Please see
Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid. --
Ķĩřβȳ
♥
Ťįɱé
Ø 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know that policy very well. It says words to "avoid" and not "banned" words. It can be used if there is an overwhelming concensus. What you are doing is wikilawyering, I am afraid. Because you very well know that they are terrorists, and the only argument that can be brought to the table is that there is a wiki guideline that says "avoid this word if possible". It doesn't say "don't use" or "it is forbidden to use".. Baristarim 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- As of now there are 31 keep votes, 5 deletes, and I'm pretty sure someone said merge... so this looks like another stunning victory for KazakhPol! KazakhPol 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per Eqdoktor and, articles about terrorist or terrorist attacks that carried out against innocent civilians should be kept in Wikipedia, but according to the WP:NPOV. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 12:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keepper points made above-- Boris Johnson VC 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This article labels groups with widely differing agendas as 'Islamic terrorists', with the reason that they say that they work in the name of Islam. There are an enormous number of groups who could be defined as 'terrorist' - it just means that they use 'terror' to further their goals. Classifying these by religion would be akin to classifying the Nazis as 'Christian terrorists'. Hut 8.5 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Nominator seems to think their perception that an article is POV is grounds for deletion, even though WP:DEL says a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion, but rather tagging the offending passages with {npov}. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minors detained in the global war on terror. -- Geo Swan 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Move -- to "Allegation of Islamic extremist terrorism" or simply "Allegation of Islamist terrorism". I have no problem with saying al-Qaeda is terrorist, but this article puts Hamas and Hezbollah as "Islamic extremist terrorists", which is strongly POVish. These organizations are democratically elected to the legistlature of their respective nations and are commonly considered (in thier home countries)as "resistance" organizations not as "extremist terrorist". That they are "terrorist" is an allegation. Bless sins 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Commentso the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing, and the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, both preformed by Hezbollah, are not terrorist attacks in your mind, and neither is the the folllowing List of Hamas suicide attacks?-- Sefringle 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, it doesn't matter what I think, per WP:OR. It matters what the people who elect these organizations to the government think. It matters what the tens of millions of residents of the Arab World think. Just because the US, EU and Israel say "xyz" is a terrorist doesn't make "xyz" a terrorist. Secondly there is a list of massacres committed by Israel, including those comitted this year in Lebanon and Gaza. Yet there is no such thing as Israeli war crimes. Since there is only Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and there should only be Accusations of Islamic extremist terrorism. Bless sins 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually there is no "list of massacres committed by Israel." The acts committed by Israel are disputed, while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just. Tewfik Talk 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Israel would dispute black was white if it felt the need. That's kind of the point of NPOV, old son. Grace Note 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- ...while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just." We are not determining what side is "right" - merely presenting facts. Tewfik Talk 09:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Aha.. Why are people pretending not to have "common sense" and the basic rules of the English language? Those who are committing their acts with the intent of terrorizing civilians are terrorists. I mean, is this so hard to understand? It doesn't even matter one bit what they believe or feel. This is the BASIC tenets of English language, your intent is to terrorize? Then that's terrorism. Quite simple really. It is definitely political correctness to say "oh well, he murdered that guy, but we cannot call him a murderer; we have to say "he was convicted of murder by this court". WP:ENGLISH also applies in Wikipedia I am afraid. There are those who have been repeatedly called terrorists, and they do act to terrorize others, therefore they are terrorists. You honestly cannot expect others to say "September 11 was a militant attack committed by those who have been labelled as terrorists by X, Y and Z"!! It doesn't matter that those wackos falsely believed that they would be banging 40 virgins after they exploded into thousand pieces :) They did it to terrorize others, ergo they are terrorists. Baristarim 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - and do not move - this is good stuff - and belongs where it is larryfooter
- Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Keep - the name change is not as important as the content. Radical Islam is a current event and people should know the facts about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwikiman ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
- Lee Hunter is absolutely right, you know. If there was an admin with the balls, he/she would delete this on the grounds that it's an egregious breach of the policies here, regardless how many vote for it. Articles that are titled with epithets should either be about the epithet or have their titles and tenor changed to something more neutral. And an epithet is what this is. It's a ragbag term for any act of violence that a/ we disapprove of, b/ is done by Muslims, c/ whose views we can characterise as extreme (while ignoring that they would characterise our secularism as equally extreme). We do not call the bombing of Baghdad "Christian extremist terrorism" even though Mr Bush a/ is a Christian, b/ is intolerant of solutions to governance that he doesn't approve of and c/ has ordered the destruction of civilian infrastructure and acts that he knew would kill civilians, among other acts of violence. Grace Note 08:16, 18 December 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.
- 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Spanish Gibraltarians
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
This article was deleted under its previous name, then restored via deletion review, then deleted again under its current name, restored again, also at deletion review, and is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep again... - Francis Tyers · 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very weak keep and Rename. While the article has some POV and other problems, none of those are a basis for deletion. However, it needs some serious clean-up and the title must be changed. The article opens with the unverified unsourced statement that "The term Spanish Gibraltarians...is most commonly used to describe those inhabitants of Gibraltar who left (voluntarily or forcibly) the town of Gibraltar during the British conquest of this town from Spain" (emphasis added herein). The highlighted portions of that sentence are unverified and unsourced. While the highlighted portion may have been the root of the dispute in past AfD/DRV discussions, this whole introductory sentence (or statements similar to it) may be why this article has attracted controversy. Furthermore, the title is simply too loaded or may be simply inaccurate. The inline sources in the article contradict the opening sentence (i.e. the term used in the links is "Spaniards in Gibraltar", not "Spanish Gibraltarians"). Something like " Spaniards of Gibraltarian origin" or " Spaniards from Gibraltar" may be a more suitable name. Alternatively, the first half of the article can be kept (with some rewriting) and renamed " Spanish exodus from Gibraltar" (or something better/more appropriate), while the second half about present-day Spaniards living in Gibraltar can be merged to Demographics of Gibraltar. Agent 86 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/merge. Seems to be a valid fork of Gibraltar. Based on the ramblings of the previous AfD, there seems to be a larger POV dispute going on here. AfD doesn't seem like the proper place for the handling of this article. (c/p of previous statement) --- RockMFR 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup Remaining POV issues can be edited away, but as I argued during the last AfD this article has a few clear references at the bottom (although references #4 and #5 can be happily dispensed with) and at least appears to have a limited mandate of explaining usage of the term. I'd like to see more line-by-line citation of course, but it's a simple and limited enough subject that I see no reason to delete it. Small historical ethnic groups deserve some attention, and this one at least asserts its own notability with a scholarly work and at least one newspaper analysis. - Markeer 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete deja vu, how many times do we have to debate this NONSENSE --
Gibnews 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- And what if I say Echidna-strength keep! or something? Use arguments, not typeface please. - 152.91.9.144 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is the THIRD time this has been debated, the article is worthless with the sole purpose of promoting arguments and edit wars. If you want arguments, here are some
- 1. This is a repetition of the article 'Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar' which was subject to a successful AfD.
- 2. The sole purpose of this article is to discredit the existance of the Gibraltarian people which the author simply dismisses as the present inhabitants of Gibraltar it is simple racism, promoting the often repeated Spanish POV that we simply do not exist as a distinct people.
- 3. The title is an oxymoron. The term 'Gibraltarian' is a modern one with a precise legal meaning, to qualify for being a Gibraltarian it is necessary to be a British Citizen. As Spain does not recognise dual nationality its rather difficult to be a 'Spanish Gibtraltarian'
- 4. The content of the article is rubbish, and it will result in an extended edit war the moment any Gibraltarian with a weak stomach reads it.
- 5. The paragraph The term Spanish Gibraltarian is also informally used, in the UK, to refer to those modern-day Gibraltarians who are primarily of Spanish language and culture, as opposed to British ex-patriates living on the territory. is a total fabrication according to the 2001 census there are 326 Spanish people resident in Gibraltar, the view promoted by the Spanish Government that the place is filled by 'British ex-pats' is untrue - the vast majority are British Gibraltarians, born in Gibraltar.
- 6. Its propaganda and racist rubbish, repeatedly trying to push 'being Spanish' down our throats is really offensive.
- 7. If it keeps coming back despite successful Afd votes to remove it, this puts the whole process of removing rubbish from Wikupedia in question.
- Gibnews 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite.-- Sandy Scott 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: This is the 3rd Afd. Please refer to past Afds for reasons. I would also like to point out to Gibnews that the main source of the article is written by a Gibraltarian!-- Burgas00 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was me thinking you wrote it, perhaps you could disclose your source. I'm willing to bet it was not A.Gibraltarian the famous banned user -- Gibnews
- Comment My brain hurts - in what way is this article different from the one that was deleted? Also, the restoration link isn't linking to the right article discussion. Robovski 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Ah, there it is. Nevermind about the discussion link. Robovski 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Pretty much repeating what I wrote in the previous AfD - There is a POV bent to it and I never like that. I always say that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. I understand this is a passionate issue in Gibraltar (having been there, I've discussed it with locals), but this was a historic part of Gibraltar, even under British rule and that can't be ignored. This reminds me of the article Whites in Zimbabwe. That segment has heavily dissipated over the years and even if it totally disappears, the subject still would be relevant even for historical reasons. -- Oakshade 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OK, I've taken some time to read up on the overturn and re-visited the previous 3 AfD discussions (yes 3). I still don't see why this needs it's own article. The subject is the very few Spanish inhabitants who did not leave after the British conquest of more than 300 years ago and the very few people who claim to be thier decendants (and thier non-notable organization, the Heirs of Gibraltar). There is a claim that the term Spanish Gibraltarian is a term used in the UK but then provides a reference from 106 years ago to support this. If this information is considered noatble, it should be in the main Gibraltar article or a related article (probably best in the History of Gibraltar article). The article presents a POV fork in the ongoing Gibraltar dispute and doesn't belong here at Wikipedia. This is over and above the basic poor quality of the article itself. Please delete the article, please advise me when User:Burgas00 applies to have the delete overturned AGAIN or salt this so I don't have to do this a fourth time. Robovski 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete There are, of course, plenty of Gibraltarians of wholly and partly Spanish descent. There are plenty of Spaniards of Gibraltarian and British descent (there is, funnily enough, no attempt to create a class of "English Spaniards"). But this article is trying to create a class of person who simply never existed. A very few Spaniards lived on Gibraltar before it was ceded in perpetuity to Great Britain. They were not Gibraltarians, they were Spaniards. There was no such thing as a Gibraltarian until Gibraltar was created as a British Crown Colony. This is simply an attempt by those who believe that if you say something often enough it will gain a degree of credibility to try and undermine the status of the Gibraltarian people. Timbellina 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) — Timbellina ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- strong keep The arguments against keeping it sound totally like POV. We do not judge political claims. We record them. "true Spanish Gibraltans" vs the ones discussed here. POV if there ever was.
DGG 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment I have been asked on my talk page to change my vote, on the basis of the political claims involved. This reinforces my opinion that we should have nothing to do with judging political claims. If a verifiable and notable group or tendency exists, we should write about it to describe it neutrally. DGG 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- There were no Spanish Gibraltarians in 1704, there are none today, if you call a Gibraltarian a Spaniard its a recipe for trouble. -- Gibnews 09:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep. there is nothing unusual to have articles about peoples in one country with some external origin: Spanish Americans, Finnish American, Russian Germans, German Russians, etc. Spaniards in Gibraltar provably existed and look sufficiently referenced in the article to me. `' mikkanarxi 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete How many times do we have to have the same arguments? This article was already deleted before. What is this, keep at it until it gets in? It was wrong then and it's wrong now. There should be a ban on this sort of pressure bullying! Of course there are Gibraltarians of Spanish descent, but there are very few such individuals compared to those we might name Genoese Gibraltarians, Maltese Gibraltarians, Jewish Gibraltarians etc etc. Gibraltar happily is a place where one's ancestry matters not a jot. To introduce this sort of ethnic compartmentalisation would be wholly counterproductive to a society which finds it easy to erase from the common mind an individual's origins, and concentrate only what and who they are now. Gibraltar is mostly populated by British Gibraltarians. There is no such thing as any other sort of Gibraltarian. In Gibraltar there are no ghettos, there are no no-go areas for any individuals, there are no gangs based on ancestry, no socially unacceptable marriage partners. Kill this article once and for all, and have a prohibition order on it! unregistered user Ruiz 23:54, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Actually Spanish surnames are the most common in Gibraltar and are much more common than Genoese ,Maltese or Jewish names. The Jewish community of Gibraltar is relatively small, being no larger than that of Ceuta and much smaller than that of Melilla. Still, I dont see why they would not deserve an article which documents their history. I, in any case, would support it and contribute to it. In any case, I agree with DGG, political arguments evoking the greatness of the Gibraltarian people are not called for. This article was undeleted because the deletion procedures were faulty and not based on consensus. Furthermore the arguments given for deletion (OR, racism etc...) have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence. I would also recommend editors to sign in or register before voting so as to avoid suspicions of possible sockpuppetry.-- Burgas00 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- You want to throw around terms like 'sockpuppetry' you better be prepared to follow up on them. Who, exactly, would be a sockpuppet? Robovski 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Its not a question of 'evoking greatness' its the simple fact that the people of Gibraltar are called Gibraltarians TODAY. In 1704 they were simple Spaniards and they left. You just can't accept reality. -- Gibnews
Comment:Gibnews, you should follow a principle in life: Respect the names people have chosen for themselves. If those "Spaniards" who lived in Gibraltar (understandebly) called themselves Gibraltarians aswell as Spanish, let them be so. Just as Kurds in Turkey can be called Kurds as well as Turkish, Armenians in Lebanon can be called Armenian as well as Lebanese and the Palestinian diaspora should be allowed to call itself Palestinian even though Palestine does not exist as a state.-- Burgas00 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE Spanish Gibraltarians simply DO NOT EXIST. The people who lived in Gibraltar prior to 1704 were Gaditanos, i.e. from the province of Cadiz/Spain. The term Spanish Gibraltarian is an invention. The people of San Roque, where the main bulk of Spaniards who chose to leave the Rock after the conquest are Gaditanos and have always called themselves so. After the closure of the land frontier by the Spanish Dictator Franco during the sixties, most of the people of San Roque who worked in Gibraltar were dispersed to other places in Spain, therefore hardly, if any, original Spaniards who may have lived in Gibraltar prior to the conquest remain there.
The town which was created next to Gibraltar on the other side of the frontier, La Linea (the line) was made up solely of Spaniards (or Gaditanos) from the surrounding areas, San Roque included which claims to house the real inhabitants of Gibraltar before it was ceded to Britain by Spain in perpetuity by the Treaty of Utrecht, who came to service the Garrison. Thus the same can be said of other little villages in the surrounding area. Galliano is not a Spaniard, neither is Hammond,they are both sons of Gibraltar of British Gibraltarian fathers and Spanish mothers. The fact that they have been described as Spanish is pure demagogy. In fact the offending contribution in Wikipedia can be construed as such, pure fabrication of a political nature. —
Goey (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Gibnews can you please sign this last vote please? I also dont understand how you can make statements which blatantly contradict the sources provided on the article. Another thing. How can the people from the region (according to your logic) be Gaditanos and Spanish at the same time? How can Londoners of Pakistani origin be Londoners and Pakistani at the same time? Isnt this a contradiction since Pakistan is not in London? -- Burgas00 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- You choose not to understand many things. However IF you are implying that I wrote the about, think again. Take a moment to read it as it debumks your article very well. -- Gibnews 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wait who does that last vote belong to? -- Burgas00 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) GoeygOEYAll I can say is one thing. If this article is an example of what Wikipedia has to offer, I will, in future never consult or advise anybody to consult Wikipedia on anything. This is a complete fabrication posted by someone with an axe to grind, and which, if taken as true by any student or person trying to find out facts about the Gibraltarians, would greatly distort their perception of who in fact are the People of Gibraltar.
As to your comment on Gaditanos...People from Yorkshire are called Geordies are they not? It does not matter from what city or village they are collectively called Geordies and they are all still in the UK. In the same way people who come from the province of Cadiz, which is where San Roque,La Linea, Los Barrios, Algeciras etc...come from are collectively called Gaditanos but they are still all Spanish. Gibraltar is not a province of anything, it is a British Colony so we are known and call ourselves British Gibraltarians. Spanish Gibraltarians are an invention of the author.Goey 11:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Goey 16th December 12.19 p.m.
- Actually Geordie refers to a person from the Tyneside region of England and the adjacent areas, or to the dialect spoken by these people. The correct description of Gibraltar is a UK Overseas Territory not a colony, a term which brings unfortunate historical baggage.
- I have mentioned this page to a number of Gibraltarians, so you will find their views turning up, albeit they may not understand the finer points of wikipedia formatting and style. I have been unable to locate a 'Spanish Gibraltarian' to comment, they are rarer than the Dodo with which they share considerable similarity. I just saw Bernardino León, he is in Gibraltar but is not a Gibraltarian. -- Gibnews 13:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think Gibnews and I will slowly manage to hack out a version of the article with which will be acceptable to all political sensitivities.-- Burgas00 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I see you have blanked the page. Looking up the references you cited they do not actually support 'Spanish Gibraltarians' It may be more productive to let it go and move on to writing articles about something real. However if it has served as a means of getting more Gibraltarians interested in what is recorded about their history, then its been a valuable exercise. It certainly shows how little others know about the subject.
I understand you can get the publications of the transborder institute free by writing to them, as you have a genuine interest in the subject that would be interesting, although they do contain a lot of nonsense from both sides of the frontier/fence. -- Gibnews 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
/correction/ The page is still there, for some reason it did not show itself, probabaly ashamed of the content. There problem is there is no evidence that the word Gibraltarian was ever used in connection with Spanish nationals. You manufactured it. However this is not really the place to discuss this and I note you have reverted my attempts to make a honest account of things based on what YOUR references actually say. -- Gibnews 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Gibnews, I am trying to engage you constructively on the talk page. Lets both make an effort.-- Burgas00 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There are a number of people who describe themselves as Spanish Gibraltarians and I have and more references to back this up. It looks like Gibnews is trying to push his point of view on wiki again - I suspect he is using sockpuppetery also Vintagekits 00:53, 19 December 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.
James D. Nicoll
- 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 delete per WP:COI and WP:ORG. -- Core desat 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
Non-notable local political campaign group. No references cited, of the two links in the EL section, one isn't working (domain name expired) and the other doesn't mention this group at all. Their only claim to fame, according to the article, is the introduction of a bill that wasn't even heard and consequently failed. Akradecki 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn group. -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete moving to speedy WP:V. SkierRMH,08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE I think this article is worthwhile as OBAR has had a long standing history in Oklahoma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.250.215.98 ( talk)
- DO NOT DELETE This article is about a historical group that has will have its fourth bill introduced this legislative session. The external link has been updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okies ( talk • contribs). — Okies ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- NOTE: This editor created the spam article Oklahoma Coalition of Independents (OKIES) which was deleted via this AfD and has been recreated and is currently tagged for speedy. This clearly is a conflict of interest and an attempt to use Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Akradecki 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP With the additional material that was added, I think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. --
Jmbranum 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- This user appears to have an undeclared conflict of interest. I came to suspect this noticing the similarity between the username and the name of one of the refounders. His user page says that his blog is [65]. That says that he is an Independent/Green candidate for State House district 99. One of the articles [66] I did look at was primarily about someone of the same name running as the Green candidate for that district who is very active in this organization. GRBerry 06:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of meeting the primary notability criteria. No evidence of meeting the proposed guideline WP:ORG. The article contains no sources primarily about the group that meet WP:INDY. A google search [67] reveals no coverage in reliable sources that is primarily about the group. GRBerry 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per no explanation of notability, just use of sockpuppetry to canvass the vote. If you really think this group is worth keeping, kindly give us some reasons per WP:NOTE. - Patstuart talk| edits 16:35, 18 December 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.
- 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 delete. I was tempted to restart and semi-protect the AFD given the many apparent single-purpose accounts (and possibly sockpuppets) involved in this one, but disregarding those there is a clear consensus to delete. -- Core desat 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
List of bands beginning with the word "lemon"
- List of bands beginning with the word "lemon" ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
(contested PROD). List of stuff whose justification to avert being an arbitrary collection of info is decidedly original research. There was lengthy discussion on its talk page that seems to be a stalemate between deletion on policy grounds vs keep for primarily softer reasons. DMacks 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Delete -- Longhair\ talk 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I've already stated my reasons on the talk page of that article. - Mewtation 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete before we have lists of bands for every fruit and vegetable. This article is an excellent definition of trivia, which wikipedia is not. Agent 86 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing inhrerently arbitrary about the list, it is a flaw in the current version of the page. Additionally, while the justification is decidedly original research, it is not a difficult thing to remedy. You can't expect a tree the minute you plant the seed. -- 68.184.14.73 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Note: 68.184.14.73 has been blocked for continued trolling
- Keep I see nothing wrong with a list like this one, and I doubt this pushes us down a Slippery slope to more lists concerning other citruses in band names. Foxxinnia 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foxxinnia ( talk • contribs).— Foxxinnia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep It's a helpful list, and I truly don't see how this list can be brought into question, considering how many "non-notable" lists there are. I voiced my appreciation for this list on the previous talk page. Would the list be more acceptable if it was opened up to all bands/artists with "Lemon" anywhere in the name? AriasSerathe 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)— AriasSerathe ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete indiscriminate and arbitrary list, with the fuzziest of justifications. From the intro Having "Lemon" at the beginning of a band name is a good way to suggest that the band is some way wacky or that they maybe couldn't think of a name for a while and so strapped two random words together. Either way, any band that begins with the word "lemon" is clearly off-kilter in some way and worth noting. Wikipedia is not for oddball theories concocted while sitting around the dorm common area at midnight. -- Calton | Talk 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have found numerous lists on Wikipedia that have little to no practical usefulness, e.g. - List of three-letter English words. This list is no worse. -- genghisdani 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In the previous talk page, DMacks states: "To find new and exciting music, that's completely not the role of WP at all." If that's the case, I fail to see the purpose of such lists as this one or this one. AriasSerathe 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Careful though, as someone else responded there, that might be a justification for removing this page and then moving on to remove those as well rather than keeping this one.
DMacks 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- And? If the community decides one way or another, that's fine. Need I remind you that this page is a discussion, not a ballot? Unless this person is a total ass, they should be able to respect that other people may disagree with them. If the deletion of this list is decided upon, I can only hope for consistancy in the deletion of other articles. Jhalkompwdr 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Incredibly strong delete for the obvious reason that this is an indiscriminate collection of otherwise unrelated names. The list has zero encyclopedic content. -- Kicking222 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:DAFT - emphasis on the "D". Note, BTW, that none of the bands listed begins with the word lemon. Their names all do, mind you... Grutness... wha? 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Genghisdani is correct, this list is no worse than List of three-letter English words. Thank you for pointing this page out to me, it will also be marked for deletion soon. Djma12 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Denying internet-goers the ability to access this list would be like denying human beings the right to access a list about bands whose names begin with "lemon" on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.156.242 ( talk) — 75.177.156.242 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I find it curious that there are so many votes from users who have no other edit other than to vote on this page Djma12 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely arbitrary. -- Wafulz 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The only reason to delete seems to be that no one would have thought to create it, and therefor there is no real reason to delete. When in doubt- keep Yoiu17 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete One of the most arbitrary and pointless lists I've seen on the AfD. On another note, I smell sockpuppets... -- The Way 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this list. Like many lists, it may not seem relevant at the moment, but soon, it'll be filled with many bands whose names begin with the word "lemon." I know that, if I were to create a band with my fellow musicians, I'd love to be able to see our name in lights someday...or, at least, on Wikipedia. -- tasogare51
- Strong Delete - If this is kept, it would open the door for lists of bands beginning with any word in the dictionary, since there is nothing notable about bands starting with the word lemon. VegaDark 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and salt the earth and then create a list of bands beginning with the words salt the earth. SkierRMH,08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Delete, Screw the Rules I Have Money I am shocked at how many sockpuppets are on standby to keep this crap. Danny Lilithborne 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This list is a compilation of information, and lists topics which have already been deamed 'noteable' by Wikipedia's rules and regulations. It contains no origional research or biased material (neither of which is even possible in such a simple list) and deleting it would only start a new fad of going after any page of which the topic dosn't nessacarily serve a purpose for all users. Wikipedia should be able to serve the minorities as well as the whole group, as all this information is useful to someone, as has been proved by other equally obscure lists. -- 82.110.220.88 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Yet more listcruft. A shame it couldn't be speedied. Squeezeweasel 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I was actually looking for a band that had lemon in it, the lemonheads. I could not remember what there name was and whup! here's this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.149.153 ( talk) 13:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC).— 76.16.149.153 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per WP:NOT. Prolog 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate etc. etc. Yay, puppetfest! Sandstein 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Because this page isn't worse than a lot of other ones, as the above mentioned List of three-letter English words and many others. I can't see why there is this policy to remove everything, my opinion is that more pages are better. You find them useless? Don't read them. If even only one person finds this useful, it is worth to stay. 15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~
- Keep Expanding from the previous comment A better example of how this article is no worse than any others is list of one letter english words which is a list containg only 3 items and a collection of references that are obviously mentioned extensivly elsewhere on Wikipedia. This list has far better standing as a list and therefore if this has to go, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of notably 'worse' lists to be found on Wiki. -- 81.132.60.96 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — 81.132.60.96 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Now that I've said it, let me also say this: a list article that has more edit links than entries in the list needs to be rethought even if the subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia. This is trivia about three levels below acceptability in Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not an indescriminate repository of information. Delete. B.Wind 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I noticed this page yesterday, but didn't put it on my watch list because it had already been tagged and couldn't possibly last more than a few minutes. Imagine my surprise to see an AfD for it pop up on the recent changes list. It's just random information that has no real value to offer anyone. -- Onorem 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- But that's the thing. How can you claim that this information is not beneficial to anybody, and still maintain the thought that a list of one-, two-, or three-letter English words is? How can you suggest that a list of musicians fitting into certain genres is more notable; that a list of video games beginning with the letter 'F' is more practical and useful than a list of bands containing the word "lemon"? I've already discovered many new bands because of this list; it's rather ignorant to state that nobody benefits from such lists. Now if you'd please quit making such empty claims and instead come up with actual support for your argument, perhaps a decision could finally be reached. And to the rest of you, quit shouting "sockpuppetry!" like mindless peons. It doesn't make you look intelligent or clever; just pretentious and clueless. Just because there are multiple people speaking out about an issue that YOU find to be "daft" doesn't mean that they're all the same person.
AriasSerathe 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) —
AriasSerathe (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As stated before, the articles on 3 and 1 letter english words are also being tagged for deletion. Djma12 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe I ever stated that a list of 3 letter English words is useful...although some boggle and/or scrabble players may disagree. If you honestly believe that a list by genre is the same as a list of bands that start with "lemon.", I really have no desire to try to reason with you. By the way, people wouldn't be crying sockpuppetry if there wasn't so much blatant sockpuppetry here. --
Onorem 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, I seriously doubt that the admin who will close this AfD would appreciate the personal attacks by
AriasSerathe above. I'm also sure that the trolling for votes that is mentioned on the article's talk page will also be taken into consideration. Please, let's
keep it civil!
B.Wind 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It didn't seem to me as though AriasSerathe (who had some very good points) was attacking anyone. Arias was merely stating that the continual calling of "sockpuppets!" was getting repetitive, as it had already been stated many times before. Arias was not attacking the people, only the people's actions. - Mewtation 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, I seriously doubt that the admin who will close this AfD would appreciate the personal attacks by
AriasSerathe above. I'm also sure that the trolling for votes that is mentioned on the article's talk page will also be taken into consideration. Please, let's
keep it civil!
B.Wind 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As lots of comments above, completely indiscriminate list of information. One of the worst examples of list articles (and I hate list articles!) I've seen. One of the entries (The Lemonheads) doesn't even start with the word "Lemon". - fchd 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, "The Lemonheads" DOES start with the word Lemon. Words like "the" and "a" are removed from the beginning of a title when it comes to classifications. Let me guess, you look in the T section of an encyclopedia when looking for "The U.S. Civil War", or the T section of a rental store for "The Legend of Zelda"? 72.201.77.164 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Satori Son 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kill it with fire. Corporal 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article makes Baby Jesus cry. I find it humorous that this debate is even occuring. -- Guess Who 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I, as a devout Catholic, am strongly offended by this blasphemous comment. -- 81.132.60.96 07:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) — 81.132.60.96 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- strong delete Not encyclopedic, and not even necessary, since search engines exist, and anyone who wants this information --or any similar information--can easily get it. I do not know the basis for the energy being expended. DGG 06:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is essentially useless given that several unsourced bands with no wikipedia articles are also included in the list (they link to blank pages). These are bands whose
notability and very existence cannot be
verified. Essentially this makes the list wholly
personally research. At a basic level, the article does not assert anything notable about bands whose name begins with "lemon".
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--
Eqdoktor 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes it is —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.184.14.73 (
talk)
- an indiscriminate collection of information i mean --
68.184.14.73 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- And we trust an anonymous user over a Wikipedia policy page because? Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- an indiscriminate collection of information i mean --
68.184.14.73 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes it is —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.184.14.73 (
talk)
- You win. Obviously I only created the article to see what would happen. I'm surpristed it has lasted as long as it has. Delete it now if you want to. I do, however, hope that it takes down many of the other stupid lists that plague Wikipedia with it. Jhalkompwdr 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete post haste. This. is. stupid. Almost nil encyclopedic content. Also not something an average person would probably search for. Ever. Maybe if the list had over a hundred entries, but it doesn't, so delete. 'Nuff said. - t3h real adam d. 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While I agree the page is, in its current state, somewhat silly, I question then why the word
Next has its own article. Then there's the endless amount of lists on wikipedia, including a
List of lists. Where is the line drawn? While some of them are on very notable things, then there is a
List of band names with date references, a
List of Pink Floyd trivia which is band specific, and there's the
List of literary characters with nine fingers. I'm curious what line differs this from them. --
Metal Man88 10:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Next list is helpful, in the case that someone is looking for NeXT the computer company and doesn't know how it's spelled, or N. EX. T the korean rock band. That page serves to help guide people who do ambiguous searches. The List of Topics is helpful in obviously finding articles related to a subject. However, the list of bands with date references could and probably should be deleted, and the Pink Floyd trivia page should probably be merged with the Pink Floyd entry. - t3h real adam d. 18:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lemon. Lemon lemon lemon lemon, lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon... lemon lemon, lemon lemon lemon ! -- Xkeeper 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: DELETE)
- Delete stupid. bogdan 10:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) 68.184.14.73 11:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Petition accepted per bogdan. - Francis Tyers · 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Eqdoktor and others, and WP:NOT, Delta Tango • Talk 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If this AfD fails then we've truly opened the gates to the orchard. Orpheus 11:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what next, bands beginning with 'The'?-- Sandy Scott 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete With Extreme and Violent Prejudice, For Hell's Sake Do I even have to justify this vote? How about this: let's extrapolate. If one were to allow a "List of bands beginning with the word 'lemon,' " one would obviously also have to allow a "List of bands beginning with the word 'orange,' " and the word "apple," and so on. Then, one could argue that vegetables should also be allowed - then all plants. ("List of bands beginning with the word cedar"). Then someone would argue for lists of bands starting with any living thing, and then of course, inevitably, some industrious individual argues for inclusion of all "Lists of bands beginning with the word X." What with the vast number of words in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, let alone the Oxford English Dictionary, (at last count, over 300,000), this is clearly a fool's goal. Allowing this article to remain opens the floodgates for 300,000 more. ♠ P M C♠ 11:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh my gosh what the heck delete - per all of above. The obvious sockpuppetry for such a quick article is horribly puzzling. Is this listed on a website somewhere? - Patstuart talk| edits 16:29, 18 December 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.
- 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
List of J-pop artists
- List of J-pop artists ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
- Also, all related articles here
There is no reason why this article cannot be covered by a Category:J-pop artists. Delete as unmanageable listcruft and being completely redundant. Additional reasoning: at least 60% of the mentioned people are not notable enough to have their own article and there is no use in having their names on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Keep, I think there is precedent that we can have both. Lists can do things that categories can't--such as have both romanji and kanji/kana. It's easier and nicer to browse than a category in many ways.
gren
グレン 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category.
Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- In categories you may have to go "next 200" several times before finding what you want. On a list you just have to scroll down. Also lists allow for annotation and red-links. The red-links on the list could include significant J-Pop artists. Japanese people are, surprisingly, underrepresented at Wikipedia when you consider that Japan is a large and modern nation.-- T. Anthony 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't going to use T. Anthony's argument... but... In a category you will see a link to Hitomi Yaida. On a list page you can see "Hitomi Yaida (矢井田瞳)" You may not think that's a big deal... but, it can be useful I believe. Lists are more versatile and I just don't see a reason to delete it. gren グレン 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find that being split up into 26 articles is less convenient than pressing a button a few times. I also don't see how catering to lazy users is a reason for keeping such articles. Also, if an artist is notable enough, an article will be created for him/her/them. If not, then including a red link does nothing but spam up Wikipedia when some random obsessed fan decides to clog up the AfD process by writing an article about a non-notable musician.
Axem Titanium 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Red-links can help when you're interested in improving coverage of a style of music even if you don't know every individual in it. For example I found List of jazz pianists and List of Brazilian musicians useful in starting articles. I saw a name I wasn't familiar with and then checked if it was notable at music sites I know. Then on creating it the article is now available for those who know more. That's how the article on George Cables got started.-- T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll concede that, but the article gives this website as the source for most of the names. If nothing else, that link can be saved while the rest can be deleted and each musician judged on a case-by-case basis. Axem Titanium 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As there is no kanji/kana names in the list right now, we have no way to argue for or against such an addition because we don't know what it will look like. Also, the threshold of "J-POP" is not defined well in the list. Remember, J-POP covers rock, soul, R&B, and other genres, so it's a very wide category.
ColourBurst 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is valid, the topic may be too broad for a list.-- T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category.
Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - indiscriminate listcruft, no threshhold for inclusion. MER-C 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete List also seems like it could end up being very very long; Japan is a populous country, I'm sure there have been a LOT of bands and singers there over the years that could be called "j-pop". -- Brianyoumans 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Article - appears to be just a list? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Valrith 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomm. Saganaki- 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Indiscriminate list that's better served by a category. The kana argument is invalid. There are two or three entries on the list which use kana. It's not a big loss. The red link argument is invalid as these titles can be added to the Japan requested articles red link farm where they can be properly fed and looked after: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan. -- Kunzite 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I think both gren's kana/kanji argument and the red link argument are valid. It does serve good as a good starting point when I find wikipedia has zero information on a particular artist. Also converting this to a category is uncessary since it is largely covered by
Category:Japanese musicians and
Category:Japanese musical groups. This list should be preserved for the unique value it presents not available in these categories. -
rydia 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, guess what? This is EN Wikipedia, not a place to cater to Japanophile interests. Most people will not know the Japanese kana or kanji. Per User:Kunzite, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to store red links and since this list has zero information on any artist besides the name, this article is a terrible place to start research on them. A sub-category for J-pop musicians is entirely feasible too. In conclusion, this list does nothing unique. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I always use this list over the wiki generated category list because the wiki category generated list sucks. Delete that one how am I suppose to know what Jap related artists I need to be working on if there isn't a list like this to fucking tell me. Let's get back to writing articles instead of nit picking the hell out of wikipedia.
ColenFace 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Way to be civil. As User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links like this. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, better served by a category, IMO. My reasons aren't much different from those discussed above. Recury 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't delete this way better than category.
WaynGravy 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—
WaynGravy (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- No reasoning behind this? I guess not. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep How can they be deleting list. Please DONT DELETE LIST.
Azininvasive 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—
Azininvasive (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Same here, huh? Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I personally like using this list I find it much easier to use than the categorical method. I don't see why we can't just keep both and let the user decide which they would rather use. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
CanadianJohn1972 (
talk •
contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC).—
CanadianJohn1972 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- HAY LOOK! Another single purpose account! Anyway, is there any reason you'd like to impart upon us as to why it's easier besides, of course, that "it just is"? Having both is completely redundant. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as the list can hold red links to be filled later, while a category cannot. —
coelacan
talk — 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Finally! Not a single purpose account! Anyway, as User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links than this page. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not a bad point, however, in a list like this the red links already have information by way of being in the list. It invites any J-Pop fan to go ahead and fill them in. Over at the requested articles thing, you've got some nipponophiles who might do it, but this draws a more specific crowd. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Is that a bad thing? Notability is difficult to judge when one is a rabid otaku-fan so perhaps it would be better to let the so-called experts at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan (who may or may not be Japanophiles) to start stubs on notable people instead of letting over-zealous fans do the work and end up having their favorite artist on AfD. Anonymous editors are also not allowed to start articles anymore, just FYI. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed.
Bilaber 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)—
Bilaber (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oh darn. I guess I got my hopes up that someone could come up with a reasonable argument for inclusion. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with everything that Coelacan said. --
Stzr3 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A category would work just fine here. There are almost no annotations, and redirects can be used to cover alternate spellings in the few cases where there are. Redundant categories (like having the same person in Category:Japanese musicians and the new category) can be avoided by making the new category a sub-category of the pre-existing ones (sort of like how Category:Wives of Brigham Young is a sub-category of Category:Polygamists. Don't ask, it was just the first example that popped into my head...) and putting the people in the sub-category. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: 74.101.255.108 ( talk) was just previously solicited many votes with the text "Save the List! They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!!" Furthermore, they are impersonating Bilaber ( talk • contribs). Please take this into consideration when closing the discussion. -- Iamunknown 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Red links to nonexisting articles are useful. Seeing the performer's name in romaji and kanji together is useful. Neier 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the 26 sub lists though. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to refer again to
User:Kunzite's argument that
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take
Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原 めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category.
Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The title of the article is what appears in the listing, regardless of what you type in the catsort section of the category on the article page. The text entered in the catsort section is used only for sorting within the category, and nothing else. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, I like how the reasoning has changed since the AFD was opened. "not notable enough to have their own article" has morphed to "well, list them someplace else". So, are all red links in articles a bad idea? Red links should just be added to a project which may or may not be accessed by the users who read the article (list) and would otherwise have an incentive to create new information for Wikipedia? And the premise that there is no room for both categories and lists for a topic has been debated many times in the past, and judging from the 110 lists in Category:Lists of musicians by genre alone, I would have to assume that there must be a good reason to keep both the lists and categories. Adding kanji to the name in the categorization is an interesting idea (a rarity for AFD lately, it seems), and I think I'll bring that up at WP:MOS-JA where Japanese naming conventions are discussed. It still wouldn't change the fact that the list is useful. The 26 sub-lists are less useful, and I agree that they can be deleted, because they duplicate info on the main list. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I added that addendum because
User:T. Anthony explained that some notable artists may not have articles simply because of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-English speaking subjects. The notability of a person is independent of the state of having an article and I changed my argument to say that this list is not the proper place where articles should be requested and that
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is the proper place to do that.
Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on
Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
- 1-Easier to access for most people, particularly those interested in a topic.
- 2-Often made by people interested in the subject.
- That said I'm not happy with some lobbying I've seen on this.-- T. Anthony 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on
Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are
- I'm going to refer again to
User:Kunzite's argument that
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take
Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原 めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category.
Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Lists can be more informative than categories, by adding more information than a simple article title, and by arranging the subjects in a more informative way than a category can. However, beyond the red links, this list does not yet take advantage of the advantages a list can have over a category. Keep, but make the list more useful.
Dekkappai 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Categories can have organization too. It's not too difficult to simply have sub-cats for a Category:J-pop artists which would include things like Category:J-rock artists, or the like. In that way, the categories could organize the articles in the same way you mentioned, if not better. For example, if someone wanted to find other visual kei artists, they could simply click on the sub-cat "Visual kei artists" and be linked to all the other artists in that group. However, unless you want to spam the link to this article on every single J-pop artist's page, it would be difficult to locate this page in the first place and even then, it would be difficult to find the artist you're looking for. If there's something else you'd like to add, please do. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, with stipulations (Edit conflict) This list has the potential to be useful, but needs some serious work first. First and foremost, the list needs to be renamed, to something along the lines of Japanese musical artists. It includes not only J-pop artists, but it also claims to include
J-Rock,
Visual Kei, and
Japanese hip hop artists as well. Second, loose the sublists. All the information contained in them can be found in the main article, really the only reason for a sublist in this case would be if the page over the size limit, which it is not. If there are any sublists to be in there, I would say that this should be made into a hierachical list, because the list says it includes 4 distinct genres. Third, the article needs to have some serious clean-up work done. Mainly, it directly conflicts with
WP:MOS-JA, specifically the section on
modern names by going in Japanese, rather than Western order. If people have a problem with all the red links, there probably wouldn't be any problem with them being summarily moved over to
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan; somebody wanted them, might as well see if someone can make a decent article on them. I personally don't have a problem with them, though,
List of violinists has plenty of red links, and its more well-done than this list. Finally the list should definantly note that it is incomplete; I'm sure that some of the Japanese musical artists we have on Wikipedia who fall into the genres covered by this list. --
Lim
e
tom 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You go on about how it is too broad and doesn't follow certain style guidelines but do you have any specific reasons as to why a category would not be suitable for the same purpose? Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I never said that it was too broad, just improperly titled. I find that lists are generally tend to be, when well-maintained, much more user-friendly, which is the basis of why I feel it should be kept. It needs clean-up, but lists have value in that it make it more accessable for the average user. If you take note, most musical genres have both lists of aritsts within them and categories relating to them; this seems to be standard in almost every single case. To give a very abbreviated list, see List of metalcore bands and Category:Metalcore musical groups, List of death metal bands and Category:Death metal musical groups, List of jazz musicians and Category:Lists of jazz musicians, etc. There doesn't seem to be any reason why there cannot both be a list and a category. Each serve their own purpose, and there really isn't any reason why you can't have both. -- Lim e tom 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from
Most Precious Blood to
Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better.
Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Umm no. When I first started here lists were easier for me. I'd heard of listing things well before I came here and Encyclopedias themselves have index. In addition to that type Jazz pianists and you get redirected to List of jazz pianists. Or if you prefer type in "heavy metal bands" and you will get redirected to List of heavy metal bands. Now if I'm thinking "who is that jazz pianist whose obituary I saw in 2001?", how is a category going to help me? I mean assuming I don't want to go through the entire category to find out when each one died.-- T. Anthony 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think all those lists fail to grasp what it means to actually be a list, by Wikipedia's standards. Now, let's take a look at a list that isn't redundant with its category: List of HIV-positive people. While Category:HIV-positive people exists and is useful, this list goes beyond simply listing the name for the sake of having that person's name there. It provides a substantial amount of useful information that can't be achieved with a category and is also well-referenced. In its current state, this and all the other list articles that have been mentioned fail to justify their existence by including such information that a list would be required at all. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from
Most Precious Blood to
Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better.
Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's not about how long it is, it's about the J-Pop artists! I'm sorry if i sound stupid, but I believe we need to keep this list, because i've used it before, and it is very helpful, sometimes I try to find new and exciting bands using this very list. What would be the main point of destoying it? Would it be to long? There are plenty of other categories where the list is far more longer than this mere list, eg. The
List of famous left-handed people is one such example.
Blkeddie! 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if this article does not exist that they will be any less than J-pop artists? Do you have any specific reasons why a list is preferable to a category? The presence of another list does not justify this one's. It simply means that someone with a critical eye has not yet questioned its value. I can say right now that I can see myself nominating that article for deletion in preference to a category as well. Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For whatever its worth, after far too much work I took the red links out of the article, and made it conform to WP:MOS-JA naming conventions. -- Lim e tom 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say keep There's a lot of good that can be derived from an exhaustive list of J-Pop artists. I think it can really help promote modern popular Japanese music and give people a better look at all the various artists. So that people know there's more to the modern music than Gackt and Malice Mizer.
Maikeru Go 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Remember, Wikipedia is not an advertisement. We are not here to "promote" anything, only document existing notable things. This "keep" is based entirely on false premises. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A lot of Japanese artists may not be notable enough to have their own articles, but they’re worth being mentioned anyway, in case someone wants to do research about them or look up a name. Categories only list artists that have their own articles – that is, only the “notable” ones – while omitting a lot of names. ～
Michelle 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would disagree. If they're not notable enough for their own article, why should their name be mentioned at all in a professional encyclopedia? There are enough fansites that can do that. Also, what kind of research would you be able to do here if all that's mentioned is a name? If we were to go by your criteria, then the list would be nearly endless since there are literally thousands of non-notable J-pop artists. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as completely unmanageable. There are literally tens of thousands of J-pop artists, and more are coming out daily. A category is much better suited for keeping track of them. For any that need articles, they can be listed (along with the kanji/kana for their names and any supporting links) on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan pages. Also, J-rock is not a sub-genre of J-pop. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, if this page had anything more to it than just names I'd be in favor of keeping it, but without any context for the names it really isn't very useful. YankeeDoodle14 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- split and cleanup.
Monni 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uhhhh... what? I'm not sure how that could be done. Please explain. Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Lists serve purposes that categories don't. Most importantly, they can be checked and monitored for thoroughness, which is critical to Wikipedia's mission of building a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. Splitting might be a good idea, but I'm really not sure how this list would be split. --
Visviva 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by
Wikipedia's standards. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category.
List of HIV-positive people is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category:
Category:HIV-positive people.
Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then how about instead of senselessly arguing for 4 more days about how little relevant information is contained in this list you go through ever artist and put in a table a brief summary on each artist. You know just because it isn't relevant to you doesn't mean it's not relevant to the other whatever million people that use this encyclopedia. ColenFace 08:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists, particularly item 3: "Development." I'm not saying this list couldn't be done better, but it is already a useful resource for development, and could readily be made even more valuable in that regard (for example, by adding entries from other (reliable) online J-pop lists). -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- That is roughly the point I tried to make above. A list doesn't magically begin in the best format. It has been established that lists can be done well, and just because this list is not done well, it is not suitable grounds for deletion either. Grounds for improvement, yes. I'd prefer to encourage the development of the article, not removing it because it is not up to the standards of some other lists.
Neier 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping as it stands now. The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful now, so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it.
Dekkappai 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a good summary of the arguments. The list in unmanageable in scope. There are lots of J-pop artists and even if the article were cleaned up or expanded beyond a mere list of artists, it would be unmanageable, out of date, or a red link farm inviting people to submit articles for artists who really aren't notable. There are a lot of "I like it" style arguments here with people expressing a desire to keep because they find it easier to edit or keep track of a list. Those are not reasons to keep as you can easily do the same thing with a category. -- Kunzite 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- If I had to hazard a guess, I think that the number of J-Pop artists is significantly LOWER than the number of HIV infected people. I don't like making that comparison, but, since that list has been pointed to above, seems to be a good example of a list, and also seems to be managed well, claiming that the J-Pop list is unmanageable is a flawed argument.
Neier 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.
ColenFace 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- You can't do the same thing with a category. The reason for this is simple: a category is not a list; aside from the intro text and cat tags, a category is simply the result of a live database query. Thus, a category cannot be reliable monitored, because it is impossible to track when articles have been removed from a category, and for what reasons. See also Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think this list is worth keeping as it stands now. It could be done better, but that applies to everything on WP. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.
ColenFace 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. And all this time, I've been trying to convince them as to why this article is redundant when their reason for keeping doesn't even hold a candle up to the official deletion policy. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping as it stands now. The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful now, so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it.
Dekkappai 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by
Wikipedia's standards. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category.
List of HIV-positive people is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category:
Category:HIV-positive people.
Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP the list. Also, what is wrong with people creating articles for artists that "aren't notable"? Who decides who is notable and who isn't? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Tuxedo Mark (
talk •
contribs) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
- Ummm... I think we do. Seriously, we have stuff like WP:MUSIC to prevent a bazillion articles about random nobodies from being created. There are 5 billion people on this planet. Not every one of them deserves an article. If you want to have an article about you on Wikipedia, go do something special and earn it. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- They're called notability guidelines. This isn't a vote, BTW. Saying "Keep" or "Delete" without providing some rationale to back it up. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. -- Kunzite 04:33, 17 December 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.
- 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 keep — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Islamic extremist terrorism
- Islamic extremist terrorism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
Fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians in an effort to be politically correct. This concept is clearly separate from the real topic it pretends to address, Islamic terrorism. The same thing applies with Zionist political violence, which should be Zionist terrorism, and "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," which should be Israeli apartheid. KazakhPol 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- While some editors might suggest moving the current page to the title Islamic terrorism, there really isnt anything worth salvaging from the current, pov, uncited mess. KazakhPol 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete I wonder these people who claim to be philosophers and intellectuals on wikipedia. Tell me, you people really dont know the hypocrisy of news media? Did you ever hear the term 'terrorism by israel'? How many times you hear the 'christian extremist terrorism' on FOX and CNN. Does one FOX, CBC and CNN comprise all the media of the world. You Americans please come out of this Bubble created by few news channels. There is more to the world than a couple of hypocrite American channels.
- Now people will think why am I criticizing in this way. My point is, there is no such thing called 'islamic terrorism' or 'islamic extremist terrorism' in under the definition which is being provided by wikipedians here. How many countries North Korea or Syria or Iran have ruined??? NONE. How many countries American regime ruined? Dozen. How many people killed by American regime? Millions. Even then there is not even a single day when the channels dont yell the self created term 'islamic terrorism'. So my point is, the same is happening on the wikipedia articles. Muslims just cant defend by correct editing because very very minor percentage of Muslims have access to the internet. Any website goes to number one in the ranke which is used by Americans , that does not comply that it is number one in the world too. Please see the www.msn.com ranking on www.alexa.com [7]. Its number second, but in non-American and non-Eu countries, nobody even thinks to visit that site. So to be fair please give value to the limited number of disagreeing people who come from technologically less developed areas. Please see this and [ this refernce before reacting to my post. VirtualEye 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep if you want to rename the page, take it to
requested moves
Tom Harrison
Talk 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uh... except that I just said I dont want to move the page. KazakhPol 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator seems to be making two arguments, that the page is uncited,
which is absurd, and that it's POV, which he's made no evident attempt to fix or address first. There's really no valid reason presented to delete this article.--
Kchase
T 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Wikipedia's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at
Terrorism in Kazakhstan,
Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
JCAM, and
HT before making such bold statements.
KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- If 40% is uncited, then add cite tags. Just because an article lacks citations for asserted facts does not mean that it is unverifiable, which then would prompt deletion. In any case, the fact that you've tried to make other articles neutral has no bearing on this article. Deleting for POV concerns comes only after thorough attempts have been made to make the article NPOV. Only irredeemably or inherently POV articles get deleted. The current POV tag was added 24 October and there has been no conversation related to that POV claim on the talk page. In fact, the tagger, User:Farhansher, hasn't posted to the talk page since placing the tag.-- Kchase T 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Wikipedia's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at
Terrorism in Kazakhstan,
Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
JCAM, and
HT before making such bold statements.
KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article is well sourced and POV issues can be addressed. TSO1D 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per above and
WP:SNOW.
<<-armon->> 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had.
KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you review this. There's also the current talk page as well as four archives of "conversation" about it. In fact, I've renamed it myself. The problem is, you've put the article up for deletion on the basis that you object to it's title. Not a valid reason, so it won't happen. <<-armon->> 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had.
KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Nominator is not neutral in trying to delete this article. Nomination describes the article as fictitious, which is patently untrue given the amount of cited facts presented. Said article may have some POV issues which can be corrected. The article is on an important subject matter. While the subject matter is sensitive and objectionable to certain parties,
Wikipedia is not censored. --
Eqdoktor 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Wikipedia, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you?
KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, footnote 24 is citing a source discussing the issue. Googling "Islamic extremist terrorism " gets me a few thousand hits (not counting Wikipedia and its derivatives). This story an Islamic extremist supporting terrorism. OTH, if all it is you want is "Islamic extremist terrorism" together, your barking up the wrong tree. What you seem to object to is the words "Islamic", "extremist", "terrorist" put together in describing Islamic terrorism. I suggest a name change for the article as described below. -- Eqdoktor 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Wikipedia, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you?
KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why is there
Christian extremist terrorism and
Islamic extremist terrorism but no
Zionist extremist terrorism? Instead, there is
Zionist political violence. I see a clear double standard here. Either the Zionist article should be renamed to this convention, or the Christian and Islamic terrorism articles should be renamed to "political violence", i.e.
Christian political violence and
Islamic political violence.
WP:NPOV applies especially to cases such as this. metaspheres 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts.
KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think the article is supposed to be about extremist terrorism but terrorism by Islamic extremists, highlighting the fact that only a minority viewpoint within the religion have engaged in terrorism. If called Islamic terrorism it would suggest the entire religion engages in or supports terrorism. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest a centralized discussion in an attempt to create a consensus for the naming of all three articles. That's what was attempted with the "...apartheid" articles, though I'm not sure how successful it was at achieving consensus.--
Kchase
T 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to
Islamic political violence. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at
Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is also linked above. Forcing mergers sometimes happens at AfD, but there's really no point in forcing a rename, especially with the
enormous history of controversy over the name of this article. AfD, with its five day time limit, is too quick and stressful and dirty for a rename of this article, let alone a completely different one. Also look at
User_talk:Kchase02#Religion_and_terrorism_pages, as KazakhPol may be starting a centralized discussion on the names of all the articles sometime soon.--
Kchase
T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan which resulted in a rename to
Politics of Khuzestan. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised how many AfD's can't reach consensus in five days and go through relisting, deletion review, mediation, etc. Anyway, it's unusual for a rename to happen at AfD, in part because the forum isn't necessary for that purpose. Just look at the numbers below "move" that you see at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All. Frankly, saying it's as "clear cut and simple" as whether you favor "terrorism" in the title or don't is reducing the issue to a vote. My experience through hundreds of AfD discussions has taught me that a simple vote isn't usually helpful for consensus building.-- Kchase T 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not move comments. As I have stated, the AfD process is a discussion, not a vote. metaspheres 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan which resulted in a rename to
Politics of Khuzestan. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at
Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is also linked above. Forcing mergers sometimes happens at AfD, but there's really no point in forcing a rename, especially with the
enormous history of controversy over the name of this article. AfD, with its five day time limit, is too quick and stressful and dirty for a rename of this article, let alone a completely different one. Also look at
User_talk:Kchase02#Religion_and_terrorism_pages, as KazakhPol may be starting a centralized discussion on the names of all the articles sometime soon.--
Kchase
T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to
Islamic political violence. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts.
KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. No valid reason provided for deletion. I don't see why this nominator thinks that this is a "fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians". If you don't like the title, move it. If you think it is uncited, tag it with {{fact}}, {{verify}} templates. If it is POV, tag it with {{pov}}. utcursch | talk 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a well sourced article covering a sensitive and controversial topic with much skill. This is not a fictitious concept- it simply address the issue of terrorism by Muslim extremists.- WJBscribe (WJB talk) 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable and referenced. // Dirak 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Enigma059 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is notable and referenced, it needs to be claened up RaveenS 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Move to
Islamist terrorism. I've been always supporting this title. It certainly has more political connotations; which what the article is set for.
Islamism is not
Islam.
Extremism is not
fanaticism nor it is
radicalism. More sources and references to be added. POV can be sorted out by discussions on the talk page. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ® 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Islamist terrorism, though politically correct, is not factually correct. Does wikipedia strive to be politically correct or accurate. You can't be both, at least not in this case. All news organizations on television call it Islamic terrorism, Islamic Extremism, Islamic Fascism. Nobody calls it Islamist terrorism. For example, PBS calls is Islamic terrorism. BBC calls it Muslim terrorism. MSNBC calls it Islamic terrorism. The New York Times calls it Islamic radicalism. If we are to be factually accurate, we have to call it Islamic terrorism, and not Islamist.-- Sefringle 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, rename metaspheres is right on. These articles should be kept. But there is no justification whatsoever, other than home bias, for naming the "Christian", "Zionist" and "Islamic" forms differently. "Political violence" is probably more appropriate than "terrorism", but the most fundamental thing in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and WP:BIAS is that they be labelled the same. Anything else is hyprocrisy. Akihabara 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on rename. If these pages are to be renamed I propose the format: "terrorism by X'" or "political violence by X". Otherwise it reads as if one can commit acts of terrorism/political violence in a Christian or Islamic manner. The religion is relevant to the cause the terrorists are attempting to advance, not the acts of terrorism per se. An act of Christian terrorism would be in substance the same as an act of Islamic terrorism, but with a different objective. - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- re comment Actually that was the point. However, titles like that (by X) are too heavy. I'd support Akihabara suggestion using political violence as we have a guideline (
Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism). --
Szvest
Wiki me up ® 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, no move. Articles like this make WP superior to many other info sources, even if they're controversial and under contention. My OED (Concise, 11th Ed.) defines "Islamist" as both n. and adj. but moving pages just for a usage of similar words is trite and disruptive. I also find the grounds for deletion to be FAR from neutral. Better to work on the article to make it concise, NPOV, and well cited than to complain. Deletion would IMHO be akin to the "airplane into building" method of political discourse. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; I wouldn't have a problem with this being renamed Islamic terroism, but there is no logical reason to remove this article. -- Mhking 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into
Terrorism or Political ViolenceIslamic Political Violence. -- Strothra 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)- Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. --
Szvest
Wiki me up ® 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. --
Szvest
- comment This page has been renamed several times as consensus has shifted. I suggest we decide here only to delete or not, and decide at requested moves about what to call it this quarter. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is cited to multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, along with sources of less quality. It is a function of editing to sort out and remove any nonreliable sources, and to remove any POV pushing. The topic is clearly of considerable importance. Edison 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keeep The topic is scholarly and has overwhelming evidence.-- Patchouli 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep & rename. Change it to Islamic terrorism.-- 71.107.224.142 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Rename it if you want but there's no way it should be deleted. -- BillyTFried 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Religious motivated terrorism (islam) Alf photoman 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and Merge with religious violence and political violence per my discussion on the talk page (Who are these people that just randomly came into this AFD? How come they didn't look at the talk page first?) -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Islamic extremist terrorism is a major contribution to world affairs in the modern world. It diserves an article.-- Sefringle 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per svest. TruthSpreader Talk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hate text. Grace Note 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per utcursh and sefringle. Rename to Islamic terrorism, use less euphemistic titles for similar articles as per nom. Arrow740 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep Definitely a valid topic. The politically correct at work again. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to what's happenning in the world. What hate text? The real hate is in the minds of those terrorists, there is no need to be nitpicking over this. Could be renamed to "Islamist terrorism" however. "Islamic terrorism" might not be right, however, the word "Islamist" has been used generally to refer to the earthly politics motivated by Islam. In any case, even if the content was merged with another article, the text "Islamic terrorism" deserves its own article, at least to refer to the concept and notion as referred by many in the world media.
Baristarim 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, to reply to what someone said above about "western oriented blah blah". I am Turkish and I feel that it definitely deserves to be there and I never watch FOX News. I generally watch French, Turkish and American TV, and it is used quite often. My country has also suffered from Islamist terrorism, and it is definitely not Orientalistic to say that. I am an atheist, however.. Baristarim 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Article is an unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess that lumps in a vast array of unrelated conflicts and events, most of which are essentially political and territorial in nature. The criteria for inclusion in the article seems to be "anything violent involving a Muslim and/or Arab". -- Lee Hunter 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The above also applies to the The Crusades, but with Christians (and over several hundred years ago); and yet there is no dispute over the existence of the Crusades page. I believe maintainability is not an issue as it can be controlled with present Wikipedia policies, the same with the "unencyclopedic" concern. -- Eqdoktor 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- CommentThe crusades deals with a specific historical event (actually a series of events) which is very well defined. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is whatever any editor wants to make it of it no matter how ludicrous including at various times, believe it or not, the Barbary Pirates and the PFLP (Marxist-Leninist organization). Recently there's been an endless revert war over whether to include an enormous chunk of quoted material from a US university student (reputedly a heavy stoner) who went nuts and injured some people with his car. Since the guy claims to be a Muslim and he claims that God told him to do it, therefore it's "Islamic extremist terrorism". I argued against it till I was blue in the face and finally gave up in disgust. There is NO need for this article. It's just a place for people to vent their paranoid fantasies about Islam. -- Lee Hunter 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Paranoid fantasies??? Well,
My city was blasted in the middle four times by a bunch of Islamist terrorists, and there was nothing paranoid about that monsieur. So cut down on the politically correct please. They refer to themselves as jihadists, most of the world refers to themselves as such. It is pretty arrogant to say "oh, but they are not real muslims, a "real" muslim wouldn't do that!" That's arrogant and illogical. In that case we will never be able to use adjectives anymore in any language "oh, he is not fat, he is just overweight!" Whatever.. Islamic/Islamist terrorism exists, so just get used to it.
Baristarim 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are articles about Al Qaeda, Istanbul bombing, as there should be. This article will never be anything but a Frankenstein monster sewn together from parts that don't belong. -- Lee Hunter 10:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete According to VirtualEye and KazakhPol above. Mak82hyd 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Valid concept, well researched and documented. -- Gabi S. 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: This is an excellent well researched article with tonnes of useful information. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion. -- Matt57 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry KazakhPol, this will end up as a keep as well. -- Matt57 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The article could use some work but there's no question that the subject is encyclopedic. GabrielF 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There are two related articles: Militant Islam and Islamic extremist terrorism. Because there is not much overlap between the two, I think they should remain. However, it could be better to merge them into the first one (which should be heavily edited anyway). -- Gabi S. 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Is Al Qaeda Islamic? Are they terrorists? Is 60% of world terrorism committed by Islamic groups? When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts, there will no longer be a need for this page. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Jboyler (
talk •
contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
- Comment When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts... Do you mean Islamists? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 10:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and I won't mind renaming into Islamist terrorism or Islamist political violence (both now redirect here). ← Humus sapiens ну ? 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up, add more references etc. to the extent necessary. I think the naming issue requires further discussion. 6SJ7 05:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename terrorism already implies extremism.
gidonb 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- On my talk page, KazakhPol asked me what I prefer as an alternative title. It is a tough cut, but I think Islamist terrorism is the best pick. gidonb 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename, but don't delete on the basis of one easily alterable aspect,
Tewfik
Talk 16:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment replying to KazakhPol's question on my Talk: since 'extremist' refers to the the ideology and not the act (unless there were to be an "Islamic moderate terrorism"), Islamist would seem to best fit for renaming, though a further discussion on its Talk would be the way to go in this regard. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 16:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Renaming isn't really an issue for AfD - editors can work that out at the page. WilyD 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is a violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to call anything terrorist. We can have sentences like "X claims that organization Y is terrorist...", but not something like "Organization Y is a terrorist group founded by Z". Terrorist is a pejorative term, and unacceptable as a classification in a encyclopedia. It would be akin to saying "Prominent niggers include: ..." in the introduction to the article on Nigger. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- ???? You have to do your homework better. "Terrorism" is a legally defined term by a United Nations Convention. It is not a pejorative term, it is in the same category as "murder", "rape", "theft", as defined by laws. Calling someone a murderer if he has been convicted of murder is not pejorative. There is a distinct definition of the word "terrorism" (see the relevant UN Convention) and those who commit terrorism are terrorists. It is as simple as that. I had enough of this politically correct bruhaha jumping into a wide range of articles and pretending that they know better as if the others are not aware of the bulk of human knowledge and civilization. Terrorist is not the same thing as nigger, since there is no such act "to nigger" - if there was such an act, then the people who niggerded would be niggers. However terrorism is an act, and people who "terrorize" (as defined legally by the UN) are terrorists.
Baristarim 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Using the United Nations Convention's definition of the term "terrorism" is a violation of NPOV. This is Wikipedia, an international encyclopedia that should not adhere to any points of views, and in this case the view of the United Nations. I am arguing this point because if we use "terrorist" or "terrorism" the way you intend to do so, it will contradict our very own article on Terrorism which discusses this in depth. Also, "murder", "rape", and "theft", are not internationally agreed upon crimes. In one country, an action can be "murder", while in another "manslaughter", while in yet another "justifiable homicide". by calling someone's actions murder, Wikipedia is promoting a POV, which is a violation of NPOV policy. Same goes for "rape", "sexual assault", etc. We can, however, say that "according to the UN, these are acts of terrorism" etc., but if we go and say "This is an act of terrorism", then that is impermissible as content for an article. This has nothing to do with political correctness, and has all to do with Wikipedia policy. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Also, please see Please see
Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid. --
Ķĩřβȳ
♥
Ťįɱé
Ø 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know that policy very well. It says words to "avoid" and not "banned" words. It can be used if there is an overwhelming concensus. What you are doing is wikilawyering, I am afraid. Because you very well know that they are terrorists, and the only argument that can be brought to the table is that there is a wiki guideline that says "avoid this word if possible". It doesn't say "don't use" or "it is forbidden to use".. Baristarim 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- As of now there are 31 keep votes, 5 deletes, and I'm pretty sure someone said merge... so this looks like another stunning victory for KazakhPol! KazakhPol 06:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: per Eqdoktor and, articles about terrorist or terrorist attacks that carried out against innocent civilians should be kept in Wikipedia, but according to the WP:NPOV. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 12:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keepper points made above-- Boris Johnson VC 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This article labels groups with widely differing agendas as 'Islamic terrorists', with the reason that they say that they work in the name of Islam. There are an enormous number of groups who could be defined as 'terrorist' - it just means that they use 'terror' to further their goals. Classifying these by religion would be akin to classifying the Nazis as 'Christian terrorists'. Hut 8.5 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Nominator seems to think their perception that an article is POV is grounds for deletion, even though WP:DEL says a perceived POV is not grounds for deletion, but rather tagging the offending passages with {npov}. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minors detained in the global war on terror. -- Geo Swan 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Move -- to "Allegation of Islamic extremist terrorism" or simply "Allegation of Islamist terrorism". I have no problem with saying al-Qaeda is terrorist, but this article puts Hamas and Hezbollah as "Islamic extremist terrorists", which is strongly POVish. These organizations are democratically elected to the legistlature of their respective nations and are commonly considered (in thier home countries)as "resistance" organizations not as "extremist terrorist". That they are "terrorist" is an allegation. Bless sins 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Commentso the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing, and the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, both preformed by Hezbollah, are not terrorist attacks in your mind, and neither is the the folllowing List of Hamas suicide attacks?-- Sefringle 08:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, it doesn't matter what I think, per WP:OR. It matters what the people who elect these organizations to the government think. It matters what the tens of millions of residents of the Arab World think. Just because the US, EU and Israel say "xyz" is a terrorist doesn't make "xyz" a terrorist. Secondly there is a list of massacres committed by Israel, including those comitted this year in Lebanon and Gaza. Yet there is no such thing as Israeli war crimes. Since there is only Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, and there should only be Accusations of Islamic extremist terrorism. Bless sins 17:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually there is no "list of massacres committed by Israel." The acts committed by Israel are disputed, while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just. Tewfik Talk 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Israel would dispute black was white if it felt the need. That's kind of the point of NPOV, old son. Grace Note 08:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- ...while Hamas and Hezbollah are proud of their suicide attacks etc., and believe that they are just." We are not determining what side is "right" - merely presenting facts. Tewfik Talk 09:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Aha.. Why are people pretending not to have "common sense" and the basic rules of the English language? Those who are committing their acts with the intent of terrorizing civilians are terrorists. I mean, is this so hard to understand? It doesn't even matter one bit what they believe or feel. This is the BASIC tenets of English language, your intent is to terrorize? Then that's terrorism. Quite simple really. It is definitely political correctness to say "oh well, he murdered that guy, but we cannot call him a murderer; we have to say "he was convicted of murder by this court". WP:ENGLISH also applies in Wikipedia I am afraid. There are those who have been repeatedly called terrorists, and they do act to terrorize others, therefore they are terrorists. You honestly cannot expect others to say "September 11 was a militant attack committed by those who have been labelled as terrorists by X, Y and Z"!! It doesn't matter that those wackos falsely believed that they would be banging 40 virgins after they exploded into thousand pieces :) They did it to terrorize others, ergo they are terrorists. Baristarim 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - and do not move - this is good stuff - and belongs where it is larryfooter
- Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Keep - the name change is not as important as the content. Radical Islam is a current event and people should know the facts about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwikiman ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
- Lee Hunter is absolutely right, you know. If there was an admin with the balls, he/she would delete this on the grounds that it's an egregious breach of the policies here, regardless how many vote for it. Articles that are titled with epithets should either be about the epithet or have their titles and tenor changed to something more neutral. And an epithet is what this is. It's a ragbag term for any act of violence that a/ we disapprove of, b/ is done by Muslims, c/ whose views we can characterise as extreme (while ignoring that they would characterise our secularism as equally extreme). We do not call the bombing of Baghdad "Christian extremist terrorism" even though Mr Bush a/ is a Christian, b/ is intolerant of solutions to governance that he doesn't approve of and c/ has ordered the destruction of civilian infrastructure and acts that he knew would kill civilians, among other acts of violence. Grace Note 08:16, 18 December 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.
- 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 01:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Spanish Gibraltarians
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
This article was deleted under its previous name, then restored via deletion review, then deleted again under its current name, restored again, also at deletion review, and is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep again... - Francis Tyers · 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very weak keep and Rename. While the article has some POV and other problems, none of those are a basis for deletion. However, it needs some serious clean-up and the title must be changed. The article opens with the unverified unsourced statement that "The term Spanish Gibraltarians...is most commonly used to describe those inhabitants of Gibraltar who left (voluntarily or forcibly) the town of Gibraltar during the British conquest of this town from Spain" (emphasis added herein). The highlighted portions of that sentence are unverified and unsourced. While the highlighted portion may have been the root of the dispute in past AfD/DRV discussions, this whole introductory sentence (or statements similar to it) may be why this article has attracted controversy. Furthermore, the title is simply too loaded or may be simply inaccurate. The inline sources in the article contradict the opening sentence (i.e. the term used in the links is "Spaniards in Gibraltar", not "Spanish Gibraltarians"). Something like " Spaniards of Gibraltarian origin" or " Spaniards from Gibraltar" may be a more suitable name. Alternatively, the first half of the article can be kept (with some rewriting) and renamed " Spanish exodus from Gibraltar" (or something better/more appropriate), while the second half about present-day Spaniards living in Gibraltar can be merged to Demographics of Gibraltar. Agent 86 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep/merge. Seems to be a valid fork of Gibraltar. Based on the ramblings of the previous AfD, there seems to be a larger POV dispute going on here. AfD doesn't seem like the proper place for the handling of this article. (c/p of previous statement) --- RockMFR 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup Remaining POV issues can be edited away, but as I argued during the last AfD this article has a few clear references at the bottom (although references #4 and #5 can be happily dispensed with) and at least appears to have a limited mandate of explaining usage of the term. I'd like to see more line-by-line citation of course, but it's a simple and limited enough subject that I see no reason to delete it. Small historical ethnic groups deserve some attention, and this one at least asserts its own notability with a scholarly work and at least one newspaper analysis. - Markeer 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete deja vu, how many times do we have to debate this NONSENSE --
Gibnews 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- And what if I say Echidna-strength keep! or something? Use arguments, not typeface please. - 152.91.9.144 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is the THIRD time this has been debated, the article is worthless with the sole purpose of promoting arguments and edit wars. If you want arguments, here are some
- 1. This is a repetition of the article 'Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar' which was subject to a successful AfD.
- 2. The sole purpose of this article is to discredit the existance of the Gibraltarian people which the author simply dismisses as the present inhabitants of Gibraltar it is simple racism, promoting the often repeated Spanish POV that we simply do not exist as a distinct people.
- 3. The title is an oxymoron. The term 'Gibraltarian' is a modern one with a precise legal meaning, to qualify for being a Gibraltarian it is necessary to be a British Citizen. As Spain does not recognise dual nationality its rather difficult to be a 'Spanish Gibtraltarian'
- 4. The content of the article is rubbish, and it will result in an extended edit war the moment any Gibraltarian with a weak stomach reads it.
- 5. The paragraph The term Spanish Gibraltarian is also informally used, in the UK, to refer to those modern-day Gibraltarians who are primarily of Spanish language and culture, as opposed to British ex-patriates living on the territory. is a total fabrication according to the 2001 census there are 326 Spanish people resident in Gibraltar, the view promoted by the Spanish Government that the place is filled by 'British ex-pats' is untrue - the vast majority are British Gibraltarians, born in Gibraltar.
- 6. Its propaganda and racist rubbish, repeatedly trying to push 'being Spanish' down our throats is really offensive.
- 7. If it keeps coming back despite successful Afd votes to remove it, this puts the whole process of removing rubbish from Wikupedia in question.
- Gibnews 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rewrite.-- Sandy Scott 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: This is the 3rd Afd. Please refer to past Afds for reasons. I would also like to point out to Gibnews that the main source of the article is written by a Gibraltarian!-- Burgas00 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was me thinking you wrote it, perhaps you could disclose your source. I'm willing to bet it was not A.Gibraltarian the famous banned user -- Gibnews
- Comment My brain hurts - in what way is this article different from the one that was deleted? Also, the restoration link isn't linking to the right article discussion. Robovski 01:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Ah, there it is. Nevermind about the discussion link. Robovski 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Pretty much repeating what I wrote in the previous AfD - There is a POV bent to it and I never like that. I always say that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. I understand this is a passionate issue in Gibraltar (having been there, I've discussed it with locals), but this was a historic part of Gibraltar, even under British rule and that can't be ignored. This reminds me of the article Whites in Zimbabwe. That segment has heavily dissipated over the years and even if it totally disappears, the subject still would be relevant even for historical reasons. -- Oakshade 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OK, I've taken some time to read up on the overturn and re-visited the previous 3 AfD discussions (yes 3). I still don't see why this needs it's own article. The subject is the very few Spanish inhabitants who did not leave after the British conquest of more than 300 years ago and the very few people who claim to be thier decendants (and thier non-notable organization, the Heirs of Gibraltar). There is a claim that the term Spanish Gibraltarian is a term used in the UK but then provides a reference from 106 years ago to support this. If this information is considered noatble, it should be in the main Gibraltar article or a related article (probably best in the History of Gibraltar article). The article presents a POV fork in the ongoing Gibraltar dispute and doesn't belong here at Wikipedia. This is over and above the basic poor quality of the article itself. Please delete the article, please advise me when User:Burgas00 applies to have the delete overturned AGAIN or salt this so I don't have to do this a fourth time. Robovski 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete There are, of course, plenty of Gibraltarians of wholly and partly Spanish descent. There are plenty of Spaniards of Gibraltarian and British descent (there is, funnily enough, no attempt to create a class of "English Spaniards"). But this article is trying to create a class of person who simply never existed. A very few Spaniards lived on Gibraltar before it was ceded in perpetuity to Great Britain. They were not Gibraltarians, they were Spaniards. There was no such thing as a Gibraltarian until Gibraltar was created as a British Crown Colony. This is simply an attempt by those who believe that if you say something often enough it will gain a degree of credibility to try and undermine the status of the Gibraltarian people. Timbellina 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) — Timbellina ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- strong keep The arguments against keeping it sound totally like POV. We do not judge political claims. We record them. "true Spanish Gibraltans" vs the ones discussed here. POV if there ever was.
DGG 06:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment I have been asked on my talk page to change my vote, on the basis of the political claims involved. This reinforces my opinion that we should have nothing to do with judging political claims. If a verifiable and notable group or tendency exists, we should write about it to describe it neutrally. DGG 00:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- There were no Spanish Gibraltarians in 1704, there are none today, if you call a Gibraltarian a Spaniard its a recipe for trouble. -- Gibnews 09:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep. there is nothing unusual to have articles about peoples in one country with some external origin: Spanish Americans, Finnish American, Russian Germans, German Russians, etc. Spaniards in Gibraltar provably existed and look sufficiently referenced in the article to me. `' mikkanarxi 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete How many times do we have to have the same arguments? This article was already deleted before. What is this, keep at it until it gets in? It was wrong then and it's wrong now. There should be a ban on this sort of pressure bullying! Of course there are Gibraltarians of Spanish descent, but there are very few such individuals compared to those we might name Genoese Gibraltarians, Maltese Gibraltarians, Jewish Gibraltarians etc etc. Gibraltar happily is a place where one's ancestry matters not a jot. To introduce this sort of ethnic compartmentalisation would be wholly counterproductive to a society which finds it easy to erase from the common mind an individual's origins, and concentrate only what and who they are now. Gibraltar is mostly populated by British Gibraltarians. There is no such thing as any other sort of Gibraltarian. In Gibraltar there are no ghettos, there are no no-go areas for any individuals, there are no gangs based on ancestry, no socially unacceptable marriage partners. Kill this article once and for all, and have a prohibition order on it! unregistered user Ruiz 23:54, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Actually Spanish surnames are the most common in Gibraltar and are much more common than Genoese ,Maltese or Jewish names. The Jewish community of Gibraltar is relatively small, being no larger than that of Ceuta and much smaller than that of Melilla. Still, I dont see why they would not deserve an article which documents their history. I, in any case, would support it and contribute to it. In any case, I agree with DGG, political arguments evoking the greatness of the Gibraltarian people are not called for. This article was undeleted because the deletion procedures were faulty and not based on consensus. Furthermore the arguments given for deletion (OR, racism etc...) have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence. I would also recommend editors to sign in or register before voting so as to avoid suspicions of possible sockpuppetry.-- Burgas00 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- You want to throw around terms like 'sockpuppetry' you better be prepared to follow up on them. Who, exactly, would be a sockpuppet? Robovski 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Its not a question of 'evoking greatness' its the simple fact that the people of Gibraltar are called Gibraltarians TODAY. In 1704 they were simple Spaniards and they left. You just can't accept reality. -- Gibnews
Comment:Gibnews, you should follow a principle in life: Respect the names people have chosen for themselves. If those "Spaniards" who lived in Gibraltar (understandebly) called themselves Gibraltarians aswell as Spanish, let them be so. Just as Kurds in Turkey can be called Kurds as well as Turkish, Armenians in Lebanon can be called Armenian as well as Lebanese and the Palestinian diaspora should be allowed to call itself Palestinian even though Palestine does not exist as a state.-- Burgas00 16:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE Spanish Gibraltarians simply DO NOT EXIST. The people who lived in Gibraltar prior to 1704 were Gaditanos, i.e. from the province of Cadiz/Spain. The term Spanish Gibraltarian is an invention. The people of San Roque, where the main bulk of Spaniards who chose to leave the Rock after the conquest are Gaditanos and have always called themselves so. After the closure of the land frontier by the Spanish Dictator Franco during the sixties, most of the people of San Roque who worked in Gibraltar were dispersed to other places in Spain, therefore hardly, if any, original Spaniards who may have lived in Gibraltar prior to the conquest remain there.
The town which was created next to Gibraltar on the other side of the frontier, La Linea (the line) was made up solely of Spaniards (or Gaditanos) from the surrounding areas, San Roque included which claims to house the real inhabitants of Gibraltar before it was ceded to Britain by Spain in perpetuity by the Treaty of Utrecht, who came to service the Garrison. Thus the same can be said of other little villages in the surrounding area. Galliano is not a Spaniard, neither is Hammond,they are both sons of Gibraltar of British Gibraltarian fathers and Spanish mothers. The fact that they have been described as Spanish is pure demagogy. In fact the offending contribution in Wikipedia can be construed as such, pure fabrication of a political nature. —
Goey (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Gibnews can you please sign this last vote please? I also dont understand how you can make statements which blatantly contradict the sources provided on the article. Another thing. How can the people from the region (according to your logic) be Gaditanos and Spanish at the same time? How can Londoners of Pakistani origin be Londoners and Pakistani at the same time? Isnt this a contradiction since Pakistan is not in London? -- Burgas00 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- You choose not to understand many things. However IF you are implying that I wrote the about, think again. Take a moment to read it as it debumks your article very well. -- Gibnews 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Wait who does that last vote belong to? -- Burgas00 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) GoeygOEYAll I can say is one thing. If this article is an example of what Wikipedia has to offer, I will, in future never consult or advise anybody to consult Wikipedia on anything. This is a complete fabrication posted by someone with an axe to grind, and which, if taken as true by any student or person trying to find out facts about the Gibraltarians, would greatly distort their perception of who in fact are the People of Gibraltar.
As to your comment on Gaditanos...People from Yorkshire are called Geordies are they not? It does not matter from what city or village they are collectively called Geordies and they are all still in the UK. In the same way people who come from the province of Cadiz, which is where San Roque,La Linea, Los Barrios, Algeciras etc...come from are collectively called Gaditanos but they are still all Spanish. Gibraltar is not a province of anything, it is a British Colony so we are known and call ourselves British Gibraltarians. Spanish Gibraltarians are an invention of the author.Goey 11:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Goey 16th December 12.19 p.m.
- Actually Geordie refers to a person from the Tyneside region of England and the adjacent areas, or to the dialect spoken by these people. The correct description of Gibraltar is a UK Overseas Territory not a colony, a term which brings unfortunate historical baggage.
- I have mentioned this page to a number of Gibraltarians, so you will find their views turning up, albeit they may not understand the finer points of wikipedia formatting and style. I have been unable to locate a 'Spanish Gibraltarian' to comment, they are rarer than the Dodo with which they share considerable similarity. I just saw Bernardino León, he is in Gibraltar but is not a Gibraltarian. -- Gibnews 13:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think Gibnews and I will slowly manage to hack out a version of the article with which will be acceptable to all political sensitivities.-- Burgas00 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I see you have blanked the page. Looking up the references you cited they do not actually support 'Spanish Gibraltarians' It may be more productive to let it go and move on to writing articles about something real. However if it has served as a means of getting more Gibraltarians interested in what is recorded about their history, then its been a valuable exercise. It certainly shows how little others know about the subject.
I understand you can get the publications of the transborder institute free by writing to them, as you have a genuine interest in the subject that would be interesting, although they do contain a lot of nonsense from both sides of the frontier/fence. -- Gibnews 09:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
/correction/ The page is still there, for some reason it did not show itself, probabaly ashamed of the content. There problem is there is no evidence that the word Gibraltarian was ever used in connection with Spanish nationals. You manufactured it. However this is not really the place to discuss this and I note you have reverted my attempts to make a honest account of things based on what YOUR references actually say. -- Gibnews 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Gibnews, I am trying to engage you constructively on the talk page. Lets both make an effort.-- Burgas00 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There are a number of people who describe themselves as Spanish Gibraltarians and I have and more references to back this up. It looks like Gibnews is trying to push his point of view on wiki again - I suspect he is using sockpuppetery also Vintagekits 00:53, 19 December 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.
James D. Nicoll
- 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 delete per WP:COI and WP:ORG. -- Core desat 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
Non-notable local political campaign group. No references cited, of the two links in the EL section, one isn't working (domain name expired) and the other doesn't mention this group at all. Their only claim to fame, according to the article, is the introduction of a bill that wasn't even heard and consequently failed. Akradecki 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn group. -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete moving to speedy WP:V. SkierRMH,08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE I think this article is worthwhile as OBAR has had a long standing history in Oklahoma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.250.215.98 ( talk)
- DO NOT DELETE This article is about a historical group that has will have its fourth bill introduced this legislative session. The external link has been updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okies ( talk • contribs). — Okies ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- NOTE: This editor created the spam article Oklahoma Coalition of Independents (OKIES) which was deleted via this AfD and has been recreated and is currently tagged for speedy. This clearly is a conflict of interest and an attempt to use Wikipedia to push a political agenda. Akradecki 17:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP With the additional material that was added, I think this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. --
Jmbranum 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- This user appears to have an undeclared conflict of interest. I came to suspect this noticing the similarity between the username and the name of one of the refounders. His user page says that his blog is [65]. That says that he is an Independent/Green candidate for State House district 99. One of the articles [66] I did look at was primarily about someone of the same name running as the Green candidate for that district who is very active in this organization. GRBerry 06:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of meeting the primary notability criteria. No evidence of meeting the proposed guideline WP:ORG. The article contains no sources primarily about the group that meet WP:INDY. A google search [67] reveals no coverage in reliable sources that is primarily about the group. GRBerry 02:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per no explanation of notability, just use of sockpuppetry to canvass the vote. If you really think this group is worth keeping, kindly give us some reasons per WP:NOTE. - Patstuart talk| edits 16:35, 18 December 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.
- 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 delete. I was tempted to restart and semi-protect the AFD given the many apparent single-purpose accounts (and possibly sockpuppets) involved in this one, but disregarding those there is a clear consensus to delete. -- Core desat 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
List of bands beginning with the word "lemon"
- List of bands beginning with the word "lemon" ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ( View AfD)
(contested PROD). List of stuff whose justification to avert being an arbitrary collection of info is decidedly original research. There was lengthy discussion on its talk page that seems to be a stalemate between deletion on policy grounds vs keep for primarily softer reasons. DMacks 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Delete -- Longhair\ talk 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I've already stated my reasons on the talk page of that article. - Mewtation 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete before we have lists of bands for every fruit and vegetable. This article is an excellent definition of trivia, which wikipedia is not. Agent 86 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing inhrerently arbitrary about the list, it is a flaw in the current version of the page. Additionally, while the justification is decidedly original research, it is not a difficult thing to remedy. You can't expect a tree the minute you plant the seed. -- 68.184.14.73 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Note: 68.184.14.73 has been blocked for continued trolling
- Keep I see nothing wrong with a list like this one, and I doubt this pushes us down a Slippery slope to more lists concerning other citruses in band names. Foxxinnia 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foxxinnia ( talk • contribs).— Foxxinnia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep It's a helpful list, and I truly don't see how this list can be brought into question, considering how many "non-notable" lists there are. I voiced my appreciation for this list on the previous talk page. Would the list be more acceptable if it was opened up to all bands/artists with "Lemon" anywhere in the name? AriasSerathe 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)— AriasSerathe ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete indiscriminate and arbitrary list, with the fuzziest of justifications. From the intro Having "Lemon" at the beginning of a band name is a good way to suggest that the band is some way wacky or that they maybe couldn't think of a name for a while and so strapped two random words together. Either way, any band that begins with the word "lemon" is clearly off-kilter in some way and worth noting. Wikipedia is not for oddball theories concocted while sitting around the dorm common area at midnight. -- Calton | Talk 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I have found numerous lists on Wikipedia that have little to no practical usefulness, e.g. - List of three-letter English words. This list is no worse. -- genghisdani 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
In the previous talk page, DMacks states: "To find new and exciting music, that's completely not the role of WP at all." If that's the case, I fail to see the purpose of such lists as this one or this one. AriasSerathe 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Careful though, as someone else responded there, that might be a justification for removing this page and then moving on to remove those as well rather than keeping this one.
DMacks 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- And? If the community decides one way or another, that's fine. Need I remind you that this page is a discussion, not a ballot? Unless this person is a total ass, they should be able to respect that other people may disagree with them. If the deletion of this list is decided upon, I can only hope for consistancy in the deletion of other articles. Jhalkompwdr 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Incredibly strong delete for the obvious reason that this is an indiscriminate collection of otherwise unrelated names. The list has zero encyclopedic content. -- Kicking222 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:DAFT - emphasis on the "D". Note, BTW, that none of the bands listed begins with the word lemon. Their names all do, mind you... Grutness... wha? 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Genghisdani is correct, this list is no worse than List of three-letter English words. Thank you for pointing this page out to me, it will also be marked for deletion soon. Djma12 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Denying internet-goers the ability to access this list would be like denying human beings the right to access a list about bands whose names begin with "lemon" on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.156.242 ( talk) — 75.177.156.242 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I find it curious that there are so many votes from users who have no other edit other than to vote on this page Djma12 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator -- Arnzy ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Completely arbitrary. -- Wafulz 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The only reason to delete seems to be that no one would have thought to create it, and therefor there is no real reason to delete. When in doubt- keep Yoiu17 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete One of the most arbitrary and pointless lists I've seen on the AfD. On another note, I smell sockpuppets... -- The Way 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this list. Like many lists, it may not seem relevant at the moment, but soon, it'll be filled with many bands whose names begin with the word "lemon." I know that, if I were to create a band with my fellow musicians, I'd love to be able to see our name in lights someday...or, at least, on Wikipedia. -- tasogare51
- Strong Delete - If this is kept, it would open the door for lists of bands beginning with any word in the dictionary, since there is nothing notable about bands starting with the word lemon. VegaDark 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and salt the earth and then create a list of bands beginning with the words salt the earth. SkierRMH,08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Delete, Screw the Rules I Have Money I am shocked at how many sockpuppets are on standby to keep this crap. Danny Lilithborne 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This list is a compilation of information, and lists topics which have already been deamed 'noteable' by Wikipedia's rules and regulations. It contains no origional research or biased material (neither of which is even possible in such a simple list) and deleting it would only start a new fad of going after any page of which the topic dosn't nessacarily serve a purpose for all users. Wikipedia should be able to serve the minorities as well as the whole group, as all this information is useful to someone, as has been proved by other equally obscure lists. -- 82.110.220.88 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Yet more listcruft. A shame it couldn't be speedied. Squeezeweasel 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I was actually looking for a band that had lemon in it, the lemonheads. I could not remember what there name was and whup! here's this list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.149.153 ( talk) 13:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC).— 76.16.149.153 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per WP:NOT. Prolog 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate etc. etc. Yay, puppetfest! Sandstein 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Because this page isn't worse than a lot of other ones, as the above mentioned List of three-letter English words and many others. I can't see why there is this policy to remove everything, my opinion is that more pages are better. You find them useless? Don't read them. If even only one person finds this useful, it is worth to stay. 15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~
- Keep Expanding from the previous comment A better example of how this article is no worse than any others is list of one letter english words which is a list containg only 3 items and a collection of references that are obviously mentioned extensivly elsewhere on Wikipedia. This list has far better standing as a list and therefore if this has to go, then there are dozens, if not hundreds, of notably 'worse' lists to be found on Wiki. -- 81.132.60.96 15:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) — 81.132.60.96 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Now that I've said it, let me also say this: a list article that has more edit links than entries in the list needs to be rethought even if the subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia. This is trivia about three levels below acceptability in Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not an indescriminate repository of information. Delete. B.Wind 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete I noticed this page yesterday, but didn't put it on my watch list because it had already been tagged and couldn't possibly last more than a few minutes. Imagine my surprise to see an AfD for it pop up on the recent changes list. It's just random information that has no real value to offer anyone. -- Onorem 18:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- But that's the thing. How can you claim that this information is not beneficial to anybody, and still maintain the thought that a list of one-, two-, or three-letter English words is? How can you suggest that a list of musicians fitting into certain genres is more notable; that a list of video games beginning with the letter 'F' is more practical and useful than a list of bands containing the word "lemon"? I've already discovered many new bands because of this list; it's rather ignorant to state that nobody benefits from such lists. Now if you'd please quit making such empty claims and instead come up with actual support for your argument, perhaps a decision could finally be reached. And to the rest of you, quit shouting "sockpuppetry!" like mindless peons. It doesn't make you look intelligent or clever; just pretentious and clueless. Just because there are multiple people speaking out about an issue that YOU find to be "daft" doesn't mean that they're all the same person.
AriasSerathe 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) —
AriasSerathe (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As stated before, the articles on 3 and 1 letter english words are also being tagged for deletion. Djma12 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't believe I ever stated that a list of 3 letter English words is useful...although some boggle and/or scrabble players may disagree. If you honestly believe that a list by genre is the same as a list of bands that start with "lemon.", I really have no desire to try to reason with you. By the way, people wouldn't be crying sockpuppetry if there wasn't so much blatant sockpuppetry here. --
Onorem 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, I seriously doubt that the admin who will close this AfD would appreciate the personal attacks by
AriasSerathe above. I'm also sure that the trolling for votes that is mentioned on the article's talk page will also be taken into consideration. Please, let's
keep it civil!
B.Wind 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It didn't seem to me as though AriasSerathe (who had some very good points) was attacking anyone. Arias was merely stating that the continual calling of "sockpuppets!" was getting repetitive, as it had already been stated many times before. Arias was not attacking the people, only the people's actions. - Mewtation 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- In addition, I seriously doubt that the admin who will close this AfD would appreciate the personal attacks by
AriasSerathe above. I'm also sure that the trolling for votes that is mentioned on the article's talk page will also be taken into consideration. Please, let's
keep it civil!
B.Wind 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - As lots of comments above, completely indiscriminate list of information. One of the worst examples of list articles (and I hate list articles!) I've seen. One of the entries (The Lemonheads) doesn't even start with the word "Lemon". - fchd 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, "The Lemonheads" DOES start with the word Lemon. Words like "the" and "a" are removed from the beginning of a title when it comes to classifications. Let me guess, you look in the T section of an encyclopedia when looking for "The U.S. Civil War", or the T section of a rental store for "The Legend of Zelda"? 72.201.77.164 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Satori Son 22:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kill it with fire. Corporal 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article makes Baby Jesus cry. I find it humorous that this debate is even occuring. -- Guess Who 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I, as a devout Catholic, am strongly offended by this blasphemous comment. -- 81.132.60.96 07:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) — 81.132.60.96 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- strong delete Not encyclopedic, and not even necessary, since search engines exist, and anyone who wants this information --or any similar information--can easily get it. I do not know the basis for the energy being expended. DGG 06:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is essentially useless given that several unsourced bands with no wikipedia articles are also included in the list (they link to blank pages). These are bands whose
notability and very existence cannot be
verified. Essentially this makes the list wholly
personally research. At a basic level, the article does not assert anything notable about bands whose name begins with "lemon".
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--
Eqdoktor 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes it is —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.184.14.73 (
talk)
- an indiscriminate collection of information i mean --
68.184.14.73 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- And we trust an anonymous user over a Wikipedia policy page because? Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- an indiscriminate collection of information i mean --
68.184.14.73 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes it is —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
68.184.14.73 (
talk)
- You win. Obviously I only created the article to see what would happen. I'm surpristed it has lasted as long as it has. Delete it now if you want to. I do, however, hope that it takes down many of the other stupid lists that plague Wikipedia with it. Jhalkompwdr 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete post haste. This. is. stupid. Almost nil encyclopedic content. Also not something an average person would probably search for. Ever. Maybe if the list had over a hundred entries, but it doesn't, so delete. 'Nuff said. - t3h real adam d. 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While I agree the page is, in its current state, somewhat silly, I question then why the word
Next has its own article. Then there's the endless amount of lists on wikipedia, including a
List of lists. Where is the line drawn? While some of them are on very notable things, then there is a
List of band names with date references, a
List of Pink Floyd trivia which is band specific, and there's the
List of literary characters with nine fingers. I'm curious what line differs this from them. --
Metal Man88 10:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Next list is helpful, in the case that someone is looking for NeXT the computer company and doesn't know how it's spelled, or N. EX. T the korean rock band. That page serves to help guide people who do ambiguous searches. The List of Topics is helpful in obviously finding articles related to a subject. However, the list of bands with date references could and probably should be deleted, and the Pink Floyd trivia page should probably be merged with the Pink Floyd entry. - t3h real adam d. 18:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lemon. Lemon lemon lemon lemon, lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon lemon... lemon lemon, lemon lemon lemon ! -- Xkeeper 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: DELETE)
- Delete stupid. bogdan 10:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) 68.184.14.73 11:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Petition accepted per bogdan. - Francis Tyers · 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Eqdoktor and others, and WP:NOT, Delta Tango • Talk 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If this AfD fails then we've truly opened the gates to the orchard. Orpheus 11:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete what next, bands beginning with 'The'?-- Sandy Scott 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete With Extreme and Violent Prejudice, For Hell's Sake Do I even have to justify this vote? How about this: let's extrapolate. If one were to allow a "List of bands beginning with the word 'lemon,' " one would obviously also have to allow a "List of bands beginning with the word 'orange,' " and the word "apple," and so on. Then, one could argue that vegetables should also be allowed - then all plants. ("List of bands beginning with the word cedar"). Then someone would argue for lists of bands starting with any living thing, and then of course, inevitably, some industrious individual argues for inclusion of all "Lists of bands beginning with the word X." What with the vast number of words in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, let alone the Oxford English Dictionary, (at last count, over 300,000), this is clearly a fool's goal. Allowing this article to remain opens the floodgates for 300,000 more. ♠ P M C♠ 11:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh my gosh what the heck delete - per all of above. The obvious sockpuppetry for such a quick article is horribly puzzling. Is this listed on a website somewhere? - Patstuart talk| edits 16:29, 18 December 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.