Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large faggot worm

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 and move --Haemo 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. There is no such thing as a "large faggot worm". The first supposed reference gives a 404 Not Found and the second (PDF) makes no mention whatsoever to a faggot worm. It really says a lot about the project that such an obvious hoax has managed to survive on Wikipedia since October 23 2005. If this isn't indicative that something needs to change (ie. more vigorous sourcing requirements) then I don't know what is. Suggest deletion, obviously. Burntsauce 17:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Strong delete per nom, obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri per NawlinWiki, logical option. Not a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Seems like a clear hoax to me. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC) see below Bfigura ^(talk) 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per NawlinWiki. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not so sure. Google returns a number of hits in scientific papers for the latin name, including a cached copy of the "404 Not found" document. And this abstract seems to agree at least with parts of the article. Maybe "Large faggot worm" is just an unusual translation? --B. Wolterding 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, there may be a problem with the link, but see this one. --B. Wolterding 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri, the scientific name. There are plenty of references to that name, but all of them except WP mirrors use the common name Bagworm moth for this species. But our article Bagworm moth includes many genuses and species. NawlinWiki 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect this name doesn't seem to be often used, but a simple google will show that the latin name given in the article is that of the Bagworm moth.Merkinsmum 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is patently false. Google will show that the ONLY hits for "Large faggot worm" refer back to Wikipedia or one of its mirrors. I am a strong proponent of redirects in many circumstances, but certainly not for unsupported hoax terms. The links that B. Wolterding cited do not verify that this term exists either. Burntsauce 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What makes you so sure that this is an obvious hoax? Are you perhaps unfamiliar with the "bundle of sticks" meaning of faggot? Seems like an apt name for this critter to me. Deor 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm familiar with the bundle of sticks meaning, but I remain unconvinced that we should have a redirect let alone an article by this title. Burntsauce 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least some people are familiar with other meanings, which explains the unusually high level of vandalism in the page history ;-) --B. Wolterding 19:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's a picture of one. Note the slightly different spelling "fagot," though. Deor 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm, in fact, the spelling seems to vary. Infopedia 1.5 on "Tea": The tea plant is attacked by several injurious insects, the most important of which is the fagot worm. --B. Wolterding 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Google Scholar turns up two papers that use the spelling "faggot." Some of the indications point to "faggot/fagot worm"'s being a term that is perhaps used more in Asia than elsewhere. Deor 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per NawlinWiki - E. crameri is a real species of moth and the information presented here seems to be correct with the exception of the odd name. It is likely an artifact of translation or name of local interest that should not be used on Wikipedia, but this is no reason to dump the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, you are suggesting a move, but not a redirect, is that correct? IF the current material can be properly attributed to reliable sources this is a possibility, otherwise I think we are better off just starting from scratch. Burntsauce 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the second source in the article; that should suffice for attribution. I'm neutral to the question whether to move or rather merge the article (to Bagworm moth). --B. Wolterding 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri per NawlinWiki--GregRM 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri. My reading of the ghits for both terms is that eumeta crameri is the usual name for this species of bagworm. The hits for "large faggot worm" do seem to be tapping Wikipedia and its mirrors, and I was unable to find evidence for the independent use of this term. Valerius 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri. There are persuasive arguments that scientific names should be used for all organism page titles because of the variations in common name usage and this is an especially convincing case because a) Google doesn't seem to especially associate the sci name with this particular common name and b) the cast iron certainty of constant vandalism. Richard Barlow 07:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all organisms? Felis domesticus instead of cat, for instance? DS 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • nb I don't believe the original author had anything but the best intentions when they titled the article. They cannot be blamed for the more modern, more familiar usage of the word "faggot". Richard Barlow 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 15:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• All right, my recommendation is to move this to the scientific name as advocated by many above, move the resulting redirect to Faggot worm, create a redirect page at Fagot worm, and then delete the Large faggot worm redirect. A Google Books search turns up 28 hits where the term "faggot worm" is used and an additional 6 hits for "fagot worm" (no hits for "large faggot worm," though). I think that people for whom "faggot/fagot worm" is the common name of this beastie—and clearly there are some—should be led to the article if they search for that name. Deor 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri and delete the resulting redirect. Yamaguchi先生 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the latin name. Silly issue over an not so common (in some parts of the world) common name and a lake of precision in the common names available. We should really rename all species, Felis domesticus included, to their taxonomic names. Common names are inherently vague and POV, and redirects + disambigs would serve Wikipedia well. So long as the redirects work it doesn't matter if the actual article name might be surprising to some readers. We are an encyclopedia after all. --Gmaxwell 20:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Eumeta crameri. While I suppose large faggot worms might live in large bundles of wood for use in a bonfire, the article rather disagrees. We've been had. Keep the the good bits and move. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't live in bundles of wood; the larvae cover themselves with little twigs and other woody detritus, so that they look like little bundles of wood. Deor 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to (humourously) explain the seemingly fake term. Perhaps that really is why they're called the faggot worm. The point is that there is a better name for the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 20:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• merge Likely created as a joke article. Should be moved to scientific name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.252.210 (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all research indicates that this is a valid, even those initially inclined to believe that this article is a hoax have changed their mind and now accept this is not a hoax. The only controversy is that the title is politically incorrect, with the scientific name giving an easy PC way out, so what are about all the other articles at Faggot, such as9M111 Fagot or Faggot (food) would you try and rename all those to. KTo288 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.