Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
reply
Line 16: Line 16:
*'''Comment from creator''' — I absolutely did '''not''' say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vandalism_of_Stonehenge&diff=prev&oldid=1230026452 only comment] regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, {{u|GenevieveDEon}} put words into my mouth in this [[WP:RAPID]] deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment from creator''' — I absolutely did '''not''' say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vandalism_of_Stonehenge&diff=prev&oldid=1230026452 only comment] regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, {{u|GenevieveDEon}} put words into my mouth in this [[WP:RAPID]] deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still [[WP:UNDUE|undue emphasis]] on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that [[User:WeatherWriter]] tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "''the'' vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. [[User:GenevieveDEon|GenevieveDEon]] ([[User talk:GenevieveDEon|talk]]) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still [[WP:UNDUE|undue emphasis]] on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that [[User:WeatherWriter]] tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "''the'' vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. [[User:GenevieveDEon|GenevieveDEon]] ([[User talk:GenevieveDEon|talk]]) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The tag on your talk page is a required thing per [[WP:CTOPICS]]. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since [[Just Stop Oil]] is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Merge with [[Just Stop Oil#2024]]''' as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the [[Stonehenge]] article. --[[User:MtPenguinMonster|MtPenguinMonster]] ([[User talk:MtPenguinMonster|talk]]) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Merge with [[Just Stop Oil#2024]]''' as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the [[Stonehenge]] article. --[[User:MtPenguinMonster|MtPenguinMonster]] ([[User talk:MtPenguinMonster|talk]]) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Expand Scope''' or '''Merge''' — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover '''all''' acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into [[Just Stop Oil]]. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Expand Scope''' or '''Merge''' — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover '''all''' acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into [[Just Stop Oil]]. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:41, 20 June 2024

Vandalism of Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event is fully covered in a short paragraph in the main Stonehenge article. The idea that something which happened yesterday and was cleaned up today with no lasting effects needs a whole article with the sweeping title 'Vandalism of Stonehenge' is unreasonable. Attempts to query the notability of this article, or to expand its scope to match the title, have been rebuffed by the creator, which rather smacks of WP:OWN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]