reply |
No edit summary |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
This AfD is now the subject of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#User:Mokele ANI discussion] due to Mokele's attempt to canvass support for his position in violation of Wikipedia's established AfD process. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles&diff=prev&oldid=420865870]. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
This AfD is now the subject of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#User:Mokele ANI discussion] due to Mokele's attempt to canvass support for his position in violation of Wikipedia's established AfD process. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles&diff=prev&oldid=420865870]. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:I'm don't think this is what isn't accepted at AfD. [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification]] says that posting to a WikiProject or other collaboration board (as opposed to, say users with a userbox) is acceptable, and should ''ideally'' be done with neutral and polite language. I would think that any deletion nomination that could possibly be important to a WikiProject should be brought to its attention. For my part, I did come here after seeing Mokele's post, but I knew about the subject and was pretty sure that it was notable, which I believe a cursory search for sources shows (I should have stated all of this in my rationale). —[[User talk:Innotata|''innotata'']] 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
:I'm don't think this is what isn't accepted at AfD. [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification]] says that posting to a WikiProject or other collaboration board (as opposed to, say users with a userbox) is acceptable, and should ''ideally'' be done with neutral and polite language. I would think that any deletion nomination that could possibly be important to a WikiProject should be brought to its attention. For my part, I did come here after seeing Mokele's post, but I knew about the subject and was pretty sure that it was notable, which I believe a cursory search for sources shows (I should have stated all of this in my rationale). —[[User talk:Innotata|''innotata'']] 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Sour grapes much? [[User:Mokele|Mokele]] ([[User talk:Mokele|talk]]) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:02, 27 March 2011
- Herping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research, no sources, prod removed without any attempt to improve the article, article tagged with multiple problems for two years, this article is no different from the Graving article which was also deleted - it's basically a made up word used only by a limited number of enthusiasts. Rklawton (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- First, while the current state of the article is no doubt poor, that's reason to IMPROVE it, not delete it. Shocking as it may be, most of us have a lot of real, actual work to do, and cannot drop everything for every article in need of attention.
- Second, the comparison with "graving" is disingenuous. Googling "graving" yields next to nothing, other than a synonym for drydock (which is a strong case for merging). In contrast, googling "herping" yeilds a plethora of links to an activity which has no real synonym.
- Third, just because it's used in a small group of enthusiasts doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Do I seriously need to point out how many pages of obscure Star Trek trivia exist on WP? What's your criterion for how many people a group needs to have before their terms are "notable"? Because I suspect that criterion is more than met by the billion-dollar-a-year reptile trade.
- I was under the impression WP was supposed to be a reference, a place people can go to look up terms or get information. How is that served by deleting the very *name* of an activity which hundreds of thousands of folks in the US alone engage in regularly?
- This entire deletion nomination is based on nothing more than "Well, I've never heard of it and the page isn't perfect, so it can't be important, now can it?". Mokele (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's rude, disingenuous, and entirely improper to claim my AfD nomination is anything other than what I stated above. I don't put my words in your mouth - so don't put your words in mine. Also note that the edit summery you added when removing the prod tag on the article was insulting. Please refrain from personal attacks. Rklawton (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, fine, now how about addressing my actual points? Mokele (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Point: two years is more than sufficient time to improve an article.
- Point: your second point is contradicted by your third point.
- Point: your third point is cited as a reason for deleting this article - it's a made up word used by a small group of enthusiasts.
- Point: your fourth point belies an apparent misunderstanding. Wikipedia is a reference, but it's WP:NOT a reference for all things. We have requirements for notability, requirements prohibiting the publication of original research, and requirements mandating the use of reliable and verifiable sources. The article in question fails all four points. These are Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and they are what allow us to maintain our reputation as a relevant, reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- First, I haven't even been watching it for two years. And I've got about 300 other pages that *nobody* else seems to want to deal with either, all in just as much or more need of my EXTREMELY limited time, plus the time I need to put in to fighting vandals just to prevent further degeneration. Herping is accurate (based on my own, expert knowledge of the topic), and therefore leaps ahead of some of the other stuff that needs my attention. If you cared, you'd try to fix it, but evidently that's not the case.
- There is no contradiction between 1 & 2 - both are about how even a cursory google search reveals herping to be far more notable than your supposed equivalent.
- That the term is "made up" is irrelevant. So is "Skydiving", so let's delete that, eh? After all, it's just a made-up word for the hobby of an even tinier group (I'll bet $20, here and now, that there are more reptile keepers in the US than skydivers - I'm not exaggerating when I said billion-dollar industry).
- I've demonstrated this passes notability, and the OR claim is false - unreferenced isn't the same as OR. I'll add the references when I get around to it.
- Crap like this is why experts like myself so rarely contribute to WP - too many bureaucrats insisting that everything must fit some rule or be perfect from day 1. All I want to do is improve the pages, but instead, I find myself wasting my time with pointless quibbles like this, just to prevent the loss or decay of what information is already there, because of arcane and irrelevant guidelines held up like gospels.
- The page is being looked after by an expert, and will receive the attention it needs *eventually*. If that's not soon enough, then fix it yourself. Mokele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[1] There. An entire freaking book, titled the same as the page, in addition to 230,000 google results, over 13,000 results in google books, and even nearly 200 in google scholar. This effectively kills your point on notability, and can easily serve for references. Mokele (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the book is a copy of the Wikipedia article. There definitely are enough sources, though, looking at, for example, at the genuine entries on Google books. —innotata 21:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep very clearly a notable subject and the article isn't bad enough to delete it. —innotata 21:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The article need a bit of seeing to, but deleting it would be bad as it covers an important subject. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Mokele has more than demonstrated the availability of sources. Remember, AfD is not a method of dealing with imperfect articles. We delete when an article doesn't meet inclusion standards, not when it isn't developed enough. --Danger (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Danger and Mokele. Possible merge with herpetoculture?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This AfD is now the subject of an ANI discussion due to Mokele's attempt to canvass support for his position in violation of Wikipedia's established AfD process. [2]. Rklawton (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm don't think this is what isn't accepted at AfD. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says that posting to a WikiProject or other collaboration board (as opposed to, say users with a userbox) is acceptable, and should ideally be done with neutral and polite language. I would think that any deletion nomination that could possibly be important to a WikiProject should be brought to its attention. For my part, I did come here after seeing Mokele's post, but I knew about the subject and was pretty sure that it was notable, which I believe a cursory search for sources shows (I should have stated all of this in my rationale). —innotata 23:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sour grapes much? Mokele (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)