Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainu people

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously. All delete votes discounted as brand new users or likely socks. Including the nominator. -Splash 00:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu people[edit]

This article is almost completely plagarised from an Encyclopedia Britannica article. This is disgraceful! Musachachado 18:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Musachachado is documented on WP:VIP as a vandal. Casito⇝Talk 05:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal Simply posting someone's name on the VIP page does not "document" him a vandal. I could easily put your name on there and later claim you are a "documented" vandal, after all. I'm sure the evaluation of my entire corpus of contributions will show that they are, on the whole, more helpful than harmful, a few minor indiscretions aside, for which I have apologised. And my German grammar is Ausgezeichnit, thank you!SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal' It is obvious Casito is too biased to be the arbiter of who's contributions are worthwhile and what is vandalism. Just look at what he said about his over-zealous and stifling over-reactions on HIS OWN TALK PAGE: "I realize that it would be in the best interest of both Wikipedia and my sanity if I stay away from Recent Changes and similar pages which put me in the office of Wiki-cop. Without fail, I eventually get upset and bite the newcomers. The previous talk messages should reinforce that point. Furthermore, RC tends to stress me out and I would rather play it cool. I have decided that, at least for now, I'm not the best person to police recent changes and I could be much, much more constructive working in other areas." Now, in the legal world, we call that a "party admission," and hardly the type of person you'd want policing what is supposed to be an open arena of ideas.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 06:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal First, I don't pretend to be an arbiter, I am simply documenting all of your misdeeds; think of me as more of a procurator. Second, the comment on my talk page is not relevent, since it refers to my actions on WP:RC, not WP:VIP or WP:VFD. I never found any of your crap by using RC, I ran across it in the wild. Furthermore, you are not a nai-ive newcommer, but rather an established troll. Also, my admision shows that I recognize my "over-zealous-ness" and that I conceded to more experieced users who I knew were correct. The opposite could be said of you. Finally, considering your "interpretation" of copyright law at Ainu people, I doubt anyone here believes your insights into the legal world. -Casito⇝Talk 18:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Moreover, Musachachado is a banned vandal and a lying troll with no positive contribution whatsoever.--Pharos 05:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. Actually, I was temporarily blocked for "sock puppetry," not vandalism, and I can have my account reinstated whenever I want. I just have to notify an administrator which account I want to keep. So I'm not "banned," and about what, my boy, did I ever lie? You seriously need to chill out, brah.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 06:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You are a vandal; your whole history is only vandalism. You are banned; you cannot have your account reinstated. I am an administrator, please notify me which account you want to keep, I don't care; you have committed repeated vandalism with both of them.--Pharos 06:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. You are obviously of narrow mind, perhaps angry at some unspecified longings in your subconsience. Just because someone else propounds views contrary to yours does not make him a "vandal." And say what you will about my methods, it is obvious that I started a quite positive development on this article, namely, calling attention to the outdated and racist banality of the piece so that all our friends on Wikipedia can begin to improve it.SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have an unusual editing history for someone concerned about racist attitudes toward the Ainu, having repeatedly inserted a line about the "inherently superior culture" of ethnic Japanese into the article. If you wish to reform your vandalism, this is not the way to do it; but we are, and I am, open to reformed vandals. If you change your "methods" you can still become a fully respected member of the Wikipedia community. BTW, I notice it has been a while since you last made the ridiculous claim about "international thievery", that we are violating copyright on a 1911 publication. Have we at least moved beyond that now?--Pharos 16:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response. You seem to be quite a bit more civilised and reasonable than that bloody Casito fellow, who most recently implied the threat of an Interpol sting operation in response to my enlightened editing. As far as the copyright issue goes, copyright law is statutory in nature, and not common law (another thing Casito bolloxed up), and I would have to do some research on the issue and get back to you. It would simply be malpractice to render an opinion straightaway without doing the proper reflection, after all. God forbid a nice young man such as yourself might rely upon my snap judgment and wind up getting yourself sued or something horrible like that. Keep up the good work! And remember: mein Kartoffelsalat ist immer besser als dein Kartoffelsalat!SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pharos, my friend, your fellow user Casito has persisted in making legal threats against me in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please see his talk page. I have taken your offer to heart and have only made constructive edits as of late, and I would appreciate it if you would tell this cloying Casito fellow to lay off. I think an apology might be needed as well.Rainbowwarrior1977 03:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Casito has made legal threats against you? Perhaps he told you this meeting you on the street, because all he said on Wikipedia was "Website defacement is a crime in many countries", so I cannot intervene on your behalf here. Perhaps instead you should complain to the Rt. Hon Sir Henry Swindon-Cocksburn [1]. If I see much more of this nonsense, your new accounts will be banned as well.--Pharos 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've since blocked Musachachado and CelineDionFan82 as sock puppets, with a note to please email me to say which is the 'main' account. Note that multiple voting on VFD is definitely sock puppet abuse - David Gerard 23:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is definitly PD in the U.S., where Wikipedia is hosted. This is part of Musachachado's ill-informed war. -Casito⇝Talk 19:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Musachachado has resorted to a revert war and what amounts to page vandalism to make his or her case. He or she has been warned. -Casito⇝Talk
  • Delete While the Ainu people are certainly to be considered a major cultural group, this article is making a mockery of their significance. A good portion of this information is outdated. As a result, this article should be deleted and completely re-written, not just copied. Santeria 03:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (This vote is the first edit by Santeria)[reply]
  • Delete (This unsigned vote is the first edit by Sugar101)
  • Keep per Casito. Nonsense nomination. - Thatdog 19:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - ill-informed nomination Sam Vimes 20:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep'. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Casito.
  • Keep. Notable ethnic group in Japan. Clear case for speedy keep as article is of fairly high standard and the topic is clearly notable. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect article until someone has had a chance to talk to Musachachado. Haikupoet 03:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly unoriginalCelineDionFan82 03:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; obvious. Antandrus (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, sanction nominator. Xoloz 04:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, abakharev 04:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by POV-warrior. Tomer TALK 09:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: it appears possible that the nominator is simply unfamiliar with the criteria for WP:VFD, so I've stricken my above remark (for more, see Talk:Ainu people). Tomer TALK 17:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. as per others above, not a serious nomination- groundless. --cjllw | TALK 11:36, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not extensively re-edit. This article is a slanted, racist, outdated (almost a century old) and a word-for-word copy. Are we that lazy these days that we can't bother to at least 'touch up' the works of the past to reflect the knowledge of the present? Are you fellows that much in awe of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica? In my best John F. Kennedy voice, I shall proclaim to you today...that I shall Nevah..NEVAH... withdraaaw this nawniation...foo'ah Deletion!Musachachado 15:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We often use 1911 britannica articles as seeds, as they are in the public domain. Kim Bruning 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, good quality article. Maybe update it if it's old. :-) Kim Bruning 16:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, delete nominator if his breaching experiment continues - David Gerard 16:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. On the one hand, the nominator is wrong about this article being one that should be deleted. I fully agree that, since it's in the public domain, there's no copyright violation here. On the other hand, the article itself is terrible, and Musachachado is correct that it contains much that is racist and outdated. So: don't delete it, but it needs to be extensively cleaned up. Nandesuka 17:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great article, should never have been nominated. -- Judson 23:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update. Better an outdated article on the Ainu than none at all. - Mustafaa 23:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!* As having descended from Burakumin and Ainu peoples, I find this dated rubbish personally offensive!SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (This vote is the user's first edit, and is in the same writing "style" used by the now-blocked VfD nominator)[reply]

* Keep and update! There is no reason this should be deleted and it would be unfortunate if there were no article on the Ainu people. Somebody should simply clean it up.

  • A staggering nomination. May I simply remove the VfD tag? To have it there on a perfectly good article on a people is bordering on an insult. Everyking 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePatently racist just waiting to play into the fascist agenda. And no, you cannot remove the tag, sonRainbowwarrior1977 02:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (This is the user's second edit, the first being on the talk page of one of the other articles Musachachado has been actively vandalizing.)[reply]
    • You don't get a vote. And apparently you don't understand how deletion works here. If we delete this article, we are saying that the Ainu people should not have an article, period, which is a decision we could not override without a successful vote for undeletion. Therefore no matter what you think of the current article, if you think the Ainu need an article, you vote keep. Everyking 03:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually that is not correct. If an article is validly deleted, a different article on the same topic and under the same title can indeed be created, unless the article is protected in a deleted state, which typically only happens if there is a persistant attempt to recreate the article as it was prior to deletion.DES 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any recreation of an article deleted through VfD is subject to speedy deletion. Everyking 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh not quiite. WP:CSD says (Criterion G4) Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy. Note it says reposted content not reposted articles. A new article with different content, but the same title as a previously deleted article, is not "reposted content". See also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive3#reposted_content where this is discussed a bit. DES 10:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are cases in which that could be the case, for instance if I wrote an article called "Ainu people" that had little to nothing to do with the Ainu, but if the only issue is a POV complaint, then the content is going to be roughly the same, since both versions would about the Ainu. If this was deleted and someone wanted to start over they'd have to go through VfU, plain and simple. That's a long established practice. Everyking 22:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • See WP:CSD where criterion G4 says A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy. (This does not apply to content in userspace, content that was speedily deleted, or to content undeleted according to undeletion policy. Of course, other criteria than this one may still apply to such pages.). copies that are not "substantially identical" are not covered by this criterion. DES 23:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That being said, we should STRIKE Everyking's comments as misleading and prejudicial, for he gave a procedurally incorrect and perhaps dishonest reason to vote to "keep." It is clear that you CAN vote to delete and STILL have a future, better, less racist article on the Ainu People. Therefore, vote early and often for **Delete!**15:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (Posted by SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem who has already voted, and who's edit history is limited to articles that Musachachado has vandalized )
    • No you can't. We delete articles based on a judgment that they are unencyclopedic. You vote based on whether an article on the Ainu is encyclopedic. You mostly definitely do not vote based on a POV complaint you have, unless you feel the entire notion of having an article on a certain topic is POV. Everyking 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Could do with some minor cleanup but this is an encyclopedia topic. JamesBurns 03:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've begun a cleanup on the article to try to fix at least the most egregiously wrong parts of it. Nandesuka 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly needs some updating, but so do many articles. Unwarranted nomination. Chamdarae 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is this VfD still open? It was clearly not a valid VfD candidate. Move this page's contents to Talk:Ainu people and let's move on. Tomer TALK 23:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree. This article was clearly nominated in bad faith. Furthermore, this page has strayed too far from its purpose of deciding whether to keep the article. Unless someone can offer a good reason why it should stay here, I will move it to a sub-page in the Talk:Ainu_people namspace tomorrow. -Casito⇝Talk 00:23, 20 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ainu_people&oldid=1080242293"