Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 28

[edit]
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 of the debate was Speedy keep as per Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Vfd_for_Vfd. Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

This never made it to the VfD page. Might be speediable but I'll stick it on here anyway.Xezbeth 13:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I propose to delete this page and start over again on a new process, to be determined, after a substantial pause and reassessment.

  • VfD is by its very nature destructive to wikipedia, its aim is to destroy rather than create. Clearly there are objectives which VfD aims to solve, feel free to list those here. Among them:
    • There is nonsense.
    • There are stubs, which can be expanded.
    • There are copyright violations, which need to be removed.
  • However Wikipedia is not paper - the "importance" criteria is used far too often. While yes, you may believe something is unimportant, so what, the article does you (and wikipedia) no harm so long as it is factually correct and verifiable.
  • The process is unwieldy, only insiders to the VfD process can figure it out, it drains energy from other contributors having to fight rear-guard actions on already created content from rampant deletionists.
  • Delete dml 01:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not April 1 yet. -- Cyrius| 13:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • RENAME to Articles for Deletion and turn VfD into a deletion clearing house for unresolved deletions in the various deletion pages :) 132.205.15.43 14:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion. Not the proper place to discuss deletion policy. Eugene van der Pijll 14:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete subject to following comment: Please let us relative newcomers know where is the proper place to discuss deletion policy. I, personally, was a bit surprised at how strict the guidelines are (or seem to be). Might I suggest updating VfD template to include a PROMINENT link to the "proper place". --Smithfarm
    • There's no need to update it. It's the very first hyperlink on the notice. And it's in boldface. The last hyperlink on the notice, to the guide, is strongly recommended reading, too. Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong namespace to discuss Wikipedia policy. Smithfarm: the best places to look for policy discussions are on those policies' talk pages—just like for the regular articles. Try Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy to get a sense of what is being (and has been) discussed. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • strong donkey delete --Smooth Henry 18:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects belong on WP:RFD. This one would probably be kept, despite being an Evil Cross-namespace Redirect. As for vfd itself, see also Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Vfd for Vfd. (The move of vfd to Articles for Deletion is tempting—it might help to work against the "it's all about the number of votes" mentality—but probably impractical.) —Korath (Talk) 18:38, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whilst I agree that "Articles for deletion" would be more in line with "Templates for deletion", "Categories for deletion", "Images for deletion", and "Redirects for deletion", it's not that pressing an issue, and the procedure given at Wikipedia:Requested moves is best for that, anyway. This was WP:POINT made by User:DavidLevinson on March 1. It was discussed and the nomination rolled back a while ago. See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Vfd_for_Vfd. I'm going to close this discussion to prevent further people helpfully "rescuing" it in the future. Uncle G 18:46, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)


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.

Looks like a hoax. I apologize if this is a real encyclopedic guy, but I couldn't find any references. Rhobite 20:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • This Samuel Hughes is hard to pin down. However, there was apparently a Samuel Hughes who was one of the Historical members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (1911-1948). There was a General Sir Sam Hughes who ... er ... died, and a Colonel Sam Hughes who fought in the Boer War [3]. Then there's Sir Samuel Hughes, known as Sam Hughes, who was the Minister for Militia in Canada at the start of World War 1. There's a Sam Hughes who went to Tucson and had a neighbourhood named after him [4]. Then there's Samuel Hughes, who was a delegate to the Maryland constitutional convention of 1776 [5]. There's Judge Samuel Hughes, who was born 1741 (a good start) and who was a justice of the Washington County Court and Orphan's Court [6]. And there's Richard Samuel Hughes, who was a composer born in 1855 [7]. Some of these may not be significant historical figures, though. On the gripping hand, this is at the very least a Redirect. Uncle G 20:50, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good candidate for a disambiguation page. Nice research, Uncle. RickK 21:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Rossami (talk) 00:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • In a book of letters to and from george Washington, there are two entries mentioning Samuel Hughes, one on pg 94, and the other on pg 187
        • I am a direct descendant of Samuel Hughes, and I was shocked to see his entry on this "web" "site" deleted. He is one of the unsung American heroes of the Revolutionary War, and I spit in the face of anyone who tries to bury him from the eyes of history. He was right beside (actually technically behind and to the left of) George Washington when he bravely crossed the Delaware, and he would sometimes proofread George's letters to Martha. The world needs to know about Samuel Hughes!