Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:40, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Random attack by Jtdirl

Perhaps out of inability—but more likely out of malice—when Jtdirl listed this page as VfD he did not list it in the VfD directory, thereby making it hard to find if you were not following the page itself. Presumably, he wanted to be able to "stuff the ballot box" w/o having disinterested editors become aware of the VfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Unfortunately, Jtdirl is intent on sabotaging any content on Wikipedia that doesn't promote a position he has on addressing the pope with a strongly pro-Catholic POV (including vandalism, WP:Point, personal attacks, VfD abuse, etc). This article indeed draws on a discussion that grew out of a WP survey, but should not and need not refer to WP Manual of Style issues, but rather address the outside world's style guidelines. Jtdirl put this malicious {{VFD}} minutes after the page creation.

Editors who were uninvolved in the kerfuffle around WP:MoS policy might want to note that all the delete votes are from other folks who were very vocally pro-style-usage in that survey. I don't think any of them really care about this page for itself, but only hope to make hay about the WP:MoS. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:16, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

• Delete This article is nothing but a bit of propaganda inserted as part of a campaign by some users to stop the use of honorifics on wikipedia. It is neither encyclopaedic nor relevant, just part of a tactical gameplan. It is not acceptable for Wikipedians to use articles to fight their POV issues, much less to create them for that purpose. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 06:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:18, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• Keep. Gratuitous VfD. Whig 06:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An essay, not an encyclopaedic article. Maybe it could have a place in the journalism wikicity, but not here, jguk 07:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Jguk is the other user who has been less than honest about the MoS issue that Jtdirl is implicitly trying to push. That said, Wikicity:Journalism is not entirely inappropriate. However, it doesn't seem to cover the academic/reference usage.

• Keep This article has potential. Seems fairly NPOV if waffly and difficult to read ATM. The paragraph containing the phrase "peripheral to the scope of this investigation.", is POV (and pretentious). Mr. Jones 10:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:POINT. Proteus (Talk) 10:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Proteus, the fact that the article creator behaved badly does not mean the article should not exist. Please reconsider. Mr. Jones 10:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article. It's an essay, and a POV essay at that. It's also original research. I see no reason whatsoever why we'd want it in Wikipedia. Proteus (Talk) 10:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't need to be an essay. Rewritten as an article, it'll be a compilation of editorial styles with a summary. It can become purely factual and is thus eligible to be an article. See my response to James, below. Mr. Jones 11:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research (as the article itself discusses). James F. (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• James, that's an abuse of the original intention of the "no original research" rule; it was intended to exclude bizarre physics theories, etc. This is hardly that: it's common sense that publications may have some form of guidelines on the use of titles. It's not original research, anymore than a category or "list of..." page is original research. Mr. Jones 11:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's an article that stands on its own. The VfD nomination was made in bad faith by one side of a Wikipedia argument that happens to be related to the article. RSpeer 17:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, undergoing major edits. Neutrality^talk 21:29, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• keep valid article --Doc Glasgow 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep topic appropriate to include in encyclopaedia--AYArktos 01:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. By the interpretation of "no original research" some are using above, none of Wikipedia could exist. This just appears to be cobbling together verifiable references into a single well-assembled entity. ESkog 01:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article seems encyclopedic to me. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of the history of the article (the version that the VfD tag was added to certainly looked like original research) and any improper actions by anyone, the article as it currently stands is encyclopedic. -- Jonel 02:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with honorific, no need for two separate articles here. --Angr/_comhrá 04:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmanageable, would have to discuss use in all countries and cultures. Martg76 11:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and expand to cover use in all countries and cultures. Kappa 20:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with honorific. Radiant_* 13:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: seems interesting and valid to me --spiralhighway 20:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with honorific after pruning heavily. As it is, it's borderline original research. Zocky 15:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially rewrite as Editorial use of honorifics or something, if it's researched to include references to actual editorial policies. Zocky 15:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the Talk page where I discussed a better name for the page. I didn't want to unilaterally change that w/o Neutrality's sign-off (since he did major cleanup). But I haven't managed to get Neutrality to comment (he's probably busy with a million other things). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:27, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.