Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carpenter named articles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carpenter named articles[edit]

List of Carpenter named articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been created and is being maintained as a substitution for the page Carpenter (disambiguation), which the creator of this list almost completely deleted and replaced with a link to this list! Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "almost deleted" and "replaced" but my intent was reorganization, see: here Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of the information given false or harmful to anyone? Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the user who cleaned up the disambiguation page, and yes, I think my comments at Talk:Carpenter (disambiguation) provide a pretty good explanation for why the nominated article exists. I'm not going to !vote either way on whether it should be deleted, but the motivation for creating this list really, really baffles me. The creator appears to be interested in the genealogy of the Carpenter family, and if the list were limited to topics actually named after, or related to, people named Carpenter, that would make a lot more sense (although it still would not be a substitute for a disambiguation page). But I don't know why he insists on including entries like Carpenter ant and Carpenter's glue and The Walrus and the Carpenter, topics that have nothing to do with each other except including "carpenter" in the name. Propaniac (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to give opinions about the motivations of editors, then I think both sides in this debate suffer from Wikipedia syndrome. Why can't we all just get along? Let this person have his page where he can put all the carpenter items he likes and you guys keep your disambiguation page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't nominate it nor did I say it should be deleted. I just said I don't understand it and it's not a disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as a hodge podge list of anything that happens to have the word "carpenter" in it. There is no real realationship between any of the list items. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AFD is second-guessing the good work of Propaniac in dealing with a relatively new editor whose interests did not at first fit in well with how stuff is usually organized. The list-article is the compromise solution that was part of getting the disambiguation page(s) put into order. Let it be for a while, say a year, and then revisit it. There's no good purpose served now by coming down hard, repeatedly, unrelentingly, on the newish editor. --doncram (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What good is served by encouraging a new editor to create inappropriate articles? Thsi is not a situation where sourcing is at issue and there is potential for improvement. The very premise of this list is a bad idea, and time won't fix that. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Carpenter (disambiguation). It happens, now and then, that people will disagree with what the content of a particular page should be, and that's why each article has room for a "discussion" subpage. If I had been Jrcrin001, I would simply have reverted the abrupt removal of content. If an "edit war" followed (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't), then good, let some neutral parties intervene. This is, after all, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and no two people have the same vision of what Wikipedia ought to be. It's better if folks can work together. Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I requested help to avoid edit wars. And I get this. List pages were suggested as a resolution or compromise. I had no objection until the removal of partial named articles were removed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contents that were removed are contradictory to the WP:DISAMBIGUATION guideline and the Manual of Style guideline, as far as I see (and nobody has offered a contradicting interpretation). I would be happy to discuss, with any interested user, whether specific entries I removed are in fact allowable under the guidelines, or whether there are reasons this is a special case where the guideline should be overruled. But in the absence of such discussion, I don't see why I should not continue to revert edits that simply ignore the guidelines completely. Propaniac (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is your right, of course, in that this is, after all, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Mandsford (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem - a list page being created - was due to the strict interpretation of what can be and can not be on an disambiguation page. We had one editor come in and remove all partial listings. His efforts were bully type tactics. When I enlisted help, the concept of a list was brought up. See discussion comments at: Talk:Carpenter (surname). Specifically where I requested input because of conflicts and an effort to work with other editors.

Despite abrasive tactics, I thought the effort was working toward better Wiki articles and ease of use for Wiki patrons. Yes, I get frustrated because Wiki rules CONFLICT with each other. Part of the reason is the setup and flexibility of Wikipedia. Many forget that the rules are guidelines and concensus should be the spirit of Wikipedia. I have a hard time explaining this, so I hope I this is clear.

Please remember that anyone looking up whole or partially named Carpenter related articles on Wikipedia - that do not start with "Carpenter" can not be done except by a list or partial listing allowed on a disambiguation page. If you want patrons to use Wikipedia - make it easier - even with some duplication list/disambig pages - than harder. Casual visitors do not study Wikipedia and all the rules before using it. Those with the surname Carpenter are often interested in those things related to Carpenter or partially named Carpenter. It is part of learning and taking pride in the name Carpenter. Some people do not understand this. See comments at: Talk:List of Carpenter named articles.

Another example: Carpenter House is a disambig page which allows partial listings and violates many disambiguation rules and is more like a list page. See discussion there.

I do not care if you want one disambig page with partial listings or two pages with duplication and partial listings on a list page. I am willing to maintain those list pages, as allowed by WikiProject Lists. And I see no one from the List Administrators ruling on this.

I request that this discussion for deletion be placed on hold until the page in question is reviewed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and if it is appropiate for Wikipedia with input from them. Please note, I have asked for a review here. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously commented to Jrcrin001 about why partial matches are not being allowed in Carpenter (disambiguation) but being allowed in Carpenter House (disambiguation): "I think the difference is indeed the reasoning, which i tried to explain out at Talk:Carpenter House (disambiguation), i.e. that all places on it are likely to be known as Carpenter House (including John Carpenter House and Carpenter Homestead, etc.) Like Propaniac suggests, Carpenter ant is easily enough found in the search box and having it in a Carpenter disambiguation page would be more surprising than helpful to most readers."
Jrcrin001, I and probably some other editors here have never heard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists and their authority will probably not be accepted. I have some sympathy for Jrcrin001 as a relatively new Wikipedia editor, hitting up against the fact that wikipedia policy/guideline statements do indeed conflict and require interpretation. However one more policy/guideline for you is that "forum-shopping", searching around for different forums to find some support for a fixed position that you hold, is also a problem. This relatively unimportant topic of whether there should be a list about articles having Carpenter in their name is spreading too widely, causing more disruption than it is worth, in my view. Although I !voted Keep above, I don't think there is a single whole-hearted supporter for having such a vague, unlikely-to-be-useful article in wikipedia, besides Jrcrin001. Since no supporters have shown up, it becomes time for you to let it go. You could, however, ask at the Lists wikiproject and/or elsewhere for other editors to comment here. --doncram (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hurry? Let the list people have their say. It will take a few days for their input. The page can be merged or deleted later.

I would also state I appreciate your efforts in trying to mediate the partial deletions that were once part of the Carpenter (surname) article. And I also thank • Gene93k (see above) for echoing this discussion on the List page before I listed the related Carpenter list articles on the list page for review. I add no intention of forum shopping but trying to get the conflicts resolved.

And to think this all started over a robot DAB error posting and my honest efforts to resolve that. Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unneeded duplication of disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:38, 5 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Carpenter_named_articles&oldid=1069473568"