Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abhuman: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:33, 20 August 2008 editBenjiboi (talk \| contribs)50,496 edits see also← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:56, 20 August 2008 edit undoJudgesurreal777 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,231 edits withdrawNext edit →
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:::Right. Great. So. Let the AfD finish up and in your own time fire up something more appropriate to take its place. You did a good job with Commander Dante; I'm sure you (or someone else with an interest) can similarly do something with this gothic lit. topic. Making substantial changes to the content of an article during AfD is fine; you've saved several articles that way. But wholly shifting the topic -- particularly when ] is a major issue -- just muddles the process. So, again, I think the wiser course of action that leads to the least angst is to let this AfD on this topic run its course. When that's done, either fire up a same-name/different-topic article on the redlink or, if this thing survives AfD, incorporate this other facet or move the current content or whatever. All that said, I might be more receptive to a total re-write/change of topic if there were actually something sitting somewhere -- i.e. something developed in user space -- to look at, rather than a what-if. And even then, if someone's going to fire up a draft/proposal of what this new article might look like, again it might just be better to let the AfD run its course and move the material from user space to article space if the AfD ends with deletion. --] (]) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)		:::Right. Great. So. Let the AfD finish up and in your own time fire up something more appropriate to take its place. You did a good job with Commander Dante; I'm sure you (or someone else with an interest) can similarly do something with this gothic lit. topic. Making substantial changes to the content of an article during AfD is fine; you've saved several articles that way. But wholly shifting the topic -- particularly when ] is a major issue -- just muddles the process. So, again, I think the wiser course of action that leads to the least angst is to let this AfD on this topic run its course. When that's done, either fire up a same-name/different-topic article on the redlink or, if this thing survives AfD, incorporate this other facet or move the current content or whatever. All that said, I might be more receptive to a total re-write/change of topic if there were actually something sitting somewhere -- i.e. something developed in user space -- to look at, rather than a what-if. And even then, if someone's going to fire up a draft/proposal of what this new article might look like, again it might just be better to let the AfD run its course and move the material from user space to article space if the AfD ends with deletion. --] (]) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::See for what I was in the process of doing. I would not be opposed if you wanted to take what I started doing and keep that while totally removing the Warhammer stuff so that we can instead further build the Gothic novel material a la what I ultimately did with ]. I started adding the new content and there are a host of other scholarly articles and published books that discuss the topic at greater length. I think we can take the article on the Gothic novel material and divide it into sections on the concept's origins and use in specific works of fiction as discussed in the published books and journal articles. All I am saying is that instead of waiting a few days for a consensus above that is not really likely to change from what we have, we should just forge ahead and do what we did with ]. We should take that as a successful example of what we can accomplish in these scenarios. Otherwise, I am going to feel compelled to keep arguing for the Warhammer notability so that the article isn't redlinked and probably just continue to not feel as positively about some when here we have a chance to stop all back and forth going nowehere discussions and just go ahead with writing something that I think we can all agree is notable. This way, we can all more quickly move on to other articles and discussions and I will gain a great deal more respect for those who see this compromise idea as reasonable editors and therefore be far less encouraged to argue rather than discuss with them in the future. I am greatly desirous of ending the partisanship over the Warhammer articles by workingg out a compromise where if it looks like the subject currently covered by some Warhammer subject that is unlikely to pass an AfD we see if there is another subject that should be written in its place then instead of some argumentative AfD I will personally write that article which actually frees everyone else up to argue in other discussions and they in effect get the same result, but without having to contend with the usual argumentative AfD and gain greater colleagiality among all of us. If editors are willing to grant me this, because again, the ultimate result is what we had with the current ] and ], i.e. non-fiction encyclopedic articles referenced in multiple reliable secondary sources, then I too will be willing to ''greatly'' adjust how I approach AfDs and DRVs. I see here one of the best chances we have had to find a common ground and decrease any lingering animosity among us all. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)		::::See for what I was in the process of doing. I would not be opposed if you wanted to take what I started doing and keep that while totally removing the Warhammer stuff so that we can instead further build the Gothic novel material a la what I ultimately did with ]. I started adding the new content and there are a host of other scholarly articles and published books that discuss the topic at greater length. I think we can take the article on the Gothic novel material and divide it into sections on the concept's origins and use in specific works of fiction as discussed in the published books and journal articles. All I am saying is that instead of waiting a few days for a consensus above that is not really likely to change from what we have, we should just forge ahead and do what we did with ]. We should take that as a successful example of what we can accomplish in these scenarios. Otherwise, I am going to feel compelled to keep arguing for the Warhammer notability so that the article isn't redlinked and probably just continue to not feel as positively about some when here we have a chance to stop all back and forth going nowehere discussions and just go ahead with writing something that I think we can all agree is notable. This way, we can all more quickly move on to other articles and discussions and I will gain a great deal more respect for those who see this compromise idea as reasonable editors and therefore be far less encouraged to argue rather than discuss with them in the future. I am greatly desirous of ending the partisanship over the Warhammer articles by workingg out a compromise where if it looks like the subject currently covered by some Warhammer subject that is unlikely to pass an AfD we see if there is another subject that should be written in its place then instead of some argumentative AfD I will personally write that article which actually frees everyone else up to argue in other discussions and they in effect get the same result, but without having to contend with the usual argumentative AfD and gain greater colleagiality among all of us. If editors are willing to grant me this, because again, the ultimate result is what we had with the current ] and ], i.e. non-fiction encyclopedic articles referenced in multiple reliable secondary sources, then I too will be willing to ''greatly'' adjust how I approach AfDs and DRVs. I see here one of the best chances we have had to find a common ground and decrease any lingering animosity among us all. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
			*'''Withdraw''' - While I agree with EEMIV that it is very strange, this recent trend that new articles about totally different topics are being created while the AFD for the old topic is going on, I have talked with the Pumpkin King, and he has suggested that he will be able to build up an article about the new real world topic with reliable sources. As a sign of good faith, I am going to withdraw this AFD so that he can do just this, thus effectively deleting the Warhammer stuff that is totally not notable, with an article that will actually be quality. I will state though, that I will be watching closely to verify that this is done, so that I will know I was assuming good faith and was rewarded for it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this AFD, I hope in a few days a new, much better article will be here because of your vigorous support of notability and wikipedias policies. :) ] (]) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:56, 20 August 2008

Abhuman

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of plot and setting information culled from various other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is thus duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

While I am not going to argue one way or the other here about its notability in Warhammer, it is most definitely a serious and legitimate topic covered in scholarly sources about an aspect of modernist British gothic literature. Anyway, I believe that this is the approach to take here. So, if there is a consensus against the Warhammer stuff, I doubt anyone could reasonably argue against the subject as it relates to Gothic literature, so let us not be stopped by the AfD from beginning work on the article on Gothic literature in the Abhuman space and if there is consensus for the Warhammer content, that can always be moved to a new article called Abhuman (Warhammer), but clearly the use in Gothic literature is the one that gets the most reliable secondary source coverage and should be what is the focus of Abhuman. I have started working on that content, but would appreciate help and hopefully we can succeed as we did with Arathi and Commander Dante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned, repeatedly, about derailing AFDs about unrelated subjects.

Write an unrelated article if you care to, and do not mention it in this AFD again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, between the recent conversation at AN/I (I don't have a link, but you probably know the one I'm talking about) and the DRVs for Sonic Shower and Commander Dante, it seems clear to me, and I hope to you, that the best course of action would be to let this AfD on this Warhammer content run its course, while you in parallel create in your user space an Abhuman article with whatever substantiation for notability and references you can dig up, and/or develop something new atop what I'm sure will be the redlink that this AfD yields. --EEMIV (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

EEMIV, if I am not going to convince anyone on the Warhammer stuff, then please let's just go ahead and write the new article over that one to save both time and energy. I am saying that I am willing to refrain from arguing further vigorously about this and maybe even other Warhammer articles if when it does turn out as was the case with Arathi and Commander Dante as well that an unquestionably notable topic does exist that we save ourselves the usual back and forth discussions and just go ahead and write the clearly encyclopedic articles. Here is a big opportunity for us all to compromise and maybe even rebuild any spirit of collegiality. I am making this offer in good faith in the hopes of preventing further inclusionist versus deletionist disputes in some of these fiction article discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Great. So. Let the AfD finish up and in your own time fire up something more appropriate to take its place. You did a good job with Commander Dante; I'm sure you (or someone else with an interest) can similarly do something with this gothic lit. topic. Making substantial changes to the content of an article during AfD is fine; you've saved several articles that way. But wholly shifting the topic -- particularly when WP:GNG is a major issue -- just muddles the process. So, again, I think the wiser course of action that leads to the least angst is to let this AfD on this topic run its course. When that's done, either fire up a same-name/different-topic article on the redlink or, if this thing survives AfD, incorporate this other facet or move the current content or whatever. All that said, I might be more receptive to a total re-write/change of topic if there were actually something sitting somewhere -- i.e. something developed in user space -- to look at, rather than a what-if. And even then, if someone's going to fire up a draft/proposal of what this new article might look like, again it might just be better to let the AfD run its course and move the material from user space to article space if the AfD ends with deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See here for what I was in the process of doing. I would not be opposed if you wanted to take what I started doing and keep that while totally removing the Warhammer stuff so that we can instead further build the Gothic novel material a la what I ultimately did with Commander Dante. I started adding the new content and there are a host of other scholarly articles and published books that discuss the topic at greater length. I think we can take the article on the Gothic novel material and divide it into sections on the concept's origins and use in specific works of fiction as discussed in the published books and journal articles. All I am saying is that instead of waiting a few days for a consensus above that is not really likely to change from what we have, we should just forge ahead and do what we did with Arathi. We should take that as a successful example of what we can accomplish in these scenarios. Otherwise, I am going to feel compelled to keep arguing for the Warhammer notability so that the article isn't redlinked and probably just continue to not feel as positively about some when here we have a chance to stop all back and forth going nowehere discussions and just go ahead with writing something that I think we can all agree is notable. This way, we can all more quickly move on to other articles and discussions and I will gain a great deal more respect for those who see this compromise idea as reasonable editors and therefore be far less encouraged to argue rather than discuss with them in the future. I am greatly desirous of ending the partisanship over the Warhammer articles by workingg out a compromise where if it looks like the subject currently covered by some Warhammer subject that is unlikely to pass an AfD we see if there is another subject that should be written in its place then instead of some argumentative AfD I will personally write that article which actually frees everyone else up to argue in other discussions and they in effect get the same result, but without having to contend with the usual argumentative AfD and gain greater colleagiality among all of us. If editors are willing to grant me this, because again, the ultimate result is what we had with the current Arathi and Commander Dante, i.e. non-fiction encyclopedic articles referenced in multiple reliable secondary sources, then I too will be willing to greatly adjust how I approach AfDs and DRVs. I see here one of the best chances we have had to find a common ground and decrease any lingering animosity among us all. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw - While I agree with EEMIV that it is very strange, this recent trend that new articles about totally different topics are being created while the AFD for the old topic is going on, I have talked with the Pumpkin King, and he has suggested that he will be able to build up an article about the new real world topic with reliable sources. As a sign of good faith, I am going to withdraw this AFD so that he can do just this, thus effectively deleting the Warhammer stuff that is totally not notable, with an article that will actually be quality. I will state though, that I will be watching closely to verify that this is done, so that I will know I was assuming good faith and was rewarded for it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this AFD, I hope in a few days a new, much better article will be here because of your vigorous support of notability and wikipedias policies. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories: