|
Tragedy (event) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) (
restore |
cache |
AfD)
This deletion was outright unfair. The article was proposed for deletion minutes after I created it, and was simply not given a chance. Just about everyone else who commented on the AFD said that it was a DICDEF. I completely disagree. On the day, I created it, it was just a single line. By the time the AFD was finished, I had expanded it to three sections with headings, and added about 4-5 excellent references that meet
WP:RS guidelines. I had planned to add a lot more over time. All this should have been enough to save it from deletion. But most likely, those who commented felt it was a done deal, and were not willing to admit that yes, the article had been improved.
The closing admin, most likely working fast through the whole thing, probably saw the overwhelming number of "deletes," and just said "the result was delete" with no further comment. This is what I expected. But if you look more carefully, most of those who said delete said just one thing: DICDEF. Meanwhile, I explained why I felt it was not a dicdef, and I backed up my views with various essays that stated such a page should not be deleted.
I am requesting the full restoration of this page, so me and others can continue to pick up from where it was left off, and continue to improve the page. Just be aware that I am very busy most of the time, so any articles I create take a long time and go slowly. But I have created some really good articles before that have started off the same way.
Shaliya waya (
talk)
15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion. The content there was no more than a
dicdef and
original research. If the nominator wishes to work further on the article I or another admin will userfy the content to enable this to happen, prior to a further review being requested to move the improved page back into mainspace.
Stifle (
talk)
15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Ascribing negative motives to participants in deletion debates is rarely productive.
Stifle (
talk)
15:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: As closing admin my position is fairly obvious. I take issue with
Shaliya waya (
talk ·
contribs)'s assumptions of my rationale and inappropriate comment above - negative statements like this are not constructive. This discussion should instead be focusing on whether consensus was determined appropriately, and whether or not the article is appropriate for inclusion.
Cirt (
talk)
15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion dicdef, better suited for
Wiktionary. @Shaliya waya: you may want to research this further and maybe work on an article related to the psychological study of tragedies, or something similar.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
15:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. Consensus was really easy to read there. While
consensus isn't an act of counting !votes, any position held nearly unanimously by the community which isn't batshit insane generally is consensus. And the position that the article violated
WP:DICDEF is pretty spot on, no less. If you'd like the article userfied so you can work on it until it is more substantial, just ask. Cheers.
lifebaka
++
21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse. You're trying to make this AFD part 2. Consensus was crystal clear there, not a single person supported keeping the article. I suggest a merge, a redirect, or a userfy. I also suggest an attitude adjustment...the "high and mighty" stuff gets you nowhere. --
UsaSatsui (
talk)
21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: First of all, the page was not a DICDEF+original research. By the time the AfD finished, the article had several references. How dare it be called OR if reliable sources are present.
- As the closing admin said above, there was "unanymous concensus to delete." That does not sound like a good motivation. If 500 people gang up together to get an article about a politician they hate deleted, and call that "unanymous concensus," would the closing admin then delete? If not a single person supports keeping an article on something very much a part of society, say a U.S. state, or a former U.S. president, would that mean the article would get deleted?
- Speaking of politics, I believe there is possibly some racism here, and someone feels articles created by black people are worthless. Many friends of mine who are white have created articles under similar circumstances, many of that are even worse than this, and they have not come close to being considered for deletion. I have not even made a userpage for myself identifying me as black, but I think people might assume so by the way my name sounds, and some of the articles I have edited. Truth is, I am very much like Barack Obama. I am 50% black, 50% white, and I have spent my entire life around mostly white people. But no matter what I am, if the perception of what my race may be is unconsciouly prejudicing someone, that is very much a problem.
- The bottom line is, I feel it is outrageous that an article like this get deleted, and not be given a chance. In this case, only a single digit number of people supposedly saw it and were able to make judgments. Very few others even knew it existed. Now, no one is getting to see it and give their opinion. I don't know who in their right mind would call this a "dicdef" when even the meager amount of sourced information it had was more than what could be found in either a paper or online dictionary. What this article really was at this point was a
STUB. If this really has to be deleted, might as well abolish all stubs, and require all articles to be quite lengthy from day one.
Shaliya waya (
talk)
00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Are you kidding me? Racism? Like we can tell your skin color through the internet? Are you just pulling every single possible silly thing you can out of your behind thinking it will work? Or are you just a troll? Either way, your comments simply scream you're not worth dealing with. --
UsaSatsui (
talk)
00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- "How dare it be called OR if reliable sources are present." have you read
WP:OR ? "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research." jsut merely citing sources for various parts of an article doesn't eliminate the possibility of original research. This is actually quite difficult and people often engage in such without realising they are doing it, they determine what they want to say and then go off and find sources for it, the article then represents their view of the subject, i.e. it is original research. --
82.7.39.174 (
talk)
06:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: As I said, ascribing negative motives to people is not going to help your position here, Shaliya waya, and you run the risk of your deletion review being speedy-closed by an admin if you continue this way.
Stifle (
talk)
08:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse deletion - As one of the original participants, who voted 'delete', I'm not sure how much credence my word deserves here. But it remains my opinion that (a) the article was a good example of what's meant by
WP:SYN (b) that the intended meaning of the title is a mere journalistic linguistic quirk, and not in and of itself a notable encyclopedic subject, and that (c) there were no personality politics in the discussion until Shaliya waya introduced them, and no hint of racism. I find Shaliya waya's mention of race to be irrelevant, and the comparison with Barack Obama to be preposterous and counter-productive. I feel that the closing admin acted correctly, in spite of a significant piece of attempted misdirection by Shaliya waya in a comment in the original discussion (to which I responded).
AlexTiefling (
talk)
12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Userfy --
Ned Scott
00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and as a black editor, I'm utterly insulted by the comments that Shaliya waya has made. There's nothing here but trolling and after that remark, I strongly suggest salting the article. -- Logical
Premise
Ergo?
16:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Wikipedia does have an article on
Tragedy (art form). However, tragedy as an event include (i) an event resulting in great loss and misfortune, (ii) any event with a sad and unfortunate outcome, and (iii) a disastrous event, especially one involving great loss of life or injury. The scope seems too broad to be covered by an encyclopedia article. However, take a look at
britannica's tragedy articles and you might come across a way to convey the information in a Wikipedia article. --
Suntag
☼
21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
reply
|