Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorific

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 15:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Honorific[edit]

Random attack by Jtdirl

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). He's also gotten to adding malicious {{VFD}} tag on a different page I created recently (Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics). This particular page was created back on September 2004, long before the survey prompting Jtdirl. However, for reasons I can't quite discern, Jtdirl seems to believe I wrote the Honorific page, and therefore wants it VfD'd just out of spite. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:11, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I do not have a position on addressing the Pope, let alone a strongly pro-Catholic POV. I have a stand on using styles. And I don't care whether that style is for the Dalai Lama, the Pope, the Prince of Wales or anyone else. But standing by principles of NPOV does not make one "strongly pro-Catholic", whereas you have made it quite clear that you have an issue not with styles but with calling the Pope His Holiness. That is your right to hold that view. But it isn't your right to expect that NPOV entries reflect your POV. And my argument would be exactly the same if the flashpoint on styles occurred on the page of the Dalai Lama, the Queen of the United Kingdom or anywhere else. That it is the Pope is irrelevant to me. You however have made it clear on talk pages that is an issue to you.

Re this page - the issue is already dealt with in far greater detail and far greater accuracy elsewhere. This is a poorly written, inaccurate alternative to a well written accurate page elsewhere that covers the information already. And it was created to give the author of it a place to push his POV on styles. The article qualifies for deletion on three grounds - malicious creation, inaccurate content and accurate in-depth content already on its own page on wikipedia. FearÉIREANN

^(talk) 07:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless article already covered in much more detail, and with less POV, elsewhere. This article was just created as part of an agenda by one user on the issue. He has created other 'pushing agenda' articles on related topics like this also and it is an abuse of wikipedia to use articles this way. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 06:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:27, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Keep. Gratuitous VfD. Whig 07:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a good article, but an encyclopaedic subject, I think. However, if the info is covered elsewhere, Merge would be appropriate. Could FearEireann say which pages he thinks already cover this topic? jguk 07:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep valid article --Doc Glasgow 00:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic and we now have a good stub on the topic. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems as though it will function primarily as a disambiguation page. At any rate, in desperate need of a reworking/rewrite. Exploding Boy 00:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

keep topic appropriate to include in encyclopaedia; significant number of links to this page; note also comment in article history "(remove redirect, too many non-japanese articles are being sent to Japanese honorifics. Will link from within article.)"--AYArktos 01:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad-faith VfD nomination. --Angr/_comhrá 04:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! I can not possibly see why it should be deleted. I came to this article to find out what honorifics were, and now I do... --Sterio 17:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zocky 15:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't make any sense to VFD this. - Cymydog Naakka 06:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.