Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fighting For Our Lives
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Fighting For Our Lives.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Fighting For Our Lives[edit]
Non-notable free newspaper, with a title like this and no further info, impossible to search for on Google. RickK 08:28, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Marked as copyvio. — Gwalla | Talk 08:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. anthony 警告 16:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That is the kind of behavior that did get you listed: voting keep without rationale to countervene what has already been established: this is a copyright violation. You are thereby voting for us to keep illegal material. Geogre 18:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I see no proof that this is a copyright violation, and VFD is not the place to list copyright violations anyway. I will clarify, though, that I only think we should keep if it is not a copyright violation or if it is rewritten. I think that's obvious, though. I wouldn't vote to keep illegal material, and whether or not to keep illegal material isn't something we should be voting on in the first place. anthony 警告 18:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's a good thing not to vote without a reason, but think that Geogre is being a bit too harsh in his criticism that Anthony is voting to keep a copyvio. I really doubt Anthony means to do that. --Improv 19:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When I give a reason, I'm criticised for trolling. When I don't give a reason, I'm criticised for that. I think people just want me not to vote in the first place. anthony 警告 19:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, you're criticised for trolling when you duplicate verbatim (e.g. "Delete - school"/"Keep - school") or negate verbatim (i.e. simply inserting or removing the word "not" or similar - "Delete - not notable enough"/"Keep - notable enough") the proposition, or a previous vote - behaviour which is considered trolling, since you are essentially dismissing someone else's vote as being invaliad, and worth less than your own. WP:NPA. Chris 00:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When has anyone ever said "Delete - school?" If they have, that's the trolling, not my response. As for saying that we should keep because the subject is notable enough, I fail to see how that is trolling, regardless of what the reason given for deletion was. I'm not saying my vote is worth more, I'm just saying my vote is worth the same. You can vote that the subject is not notable. I can vote that it is notable. In the end, the votes are counted and that determines whether the article is kept or not. It's not trolling to disagree. anthony 警告 02:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- However, it is trolling to take the exact text of someone's vote and duplicate it, especially where it doesn't look like mere coincidence. The point people are trying to get to you (which you are failing to take on board) is that you are either leaving no reason, or parodying the reason of another voter in a mocking manner, rather than coming up with a useful and unique comment each time. That, my friend, is trolling. Chris 02:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When has anyone ever said "Delete - school?" If they have, that's the trolling, not my response. As for saying that we should keep because the subject is notable enough, I fail to see how that is trolling, regardless of what the reason given for deletion was. I'm not saying my vote is worth more, I'm just saying my vote is worth the same. You can vote that the subject is not notable. I can vote that it is notable. In the end, the votes are counted and that determines whether the article is kept or not. It's not trolling to disagree. anthony 警告 02:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, you're criticised for trolling when you duplicate verbatim (e.g. "Delete - school"/"Keep - school") or negate verbatim (i.e. simply inserting or removing the word "not" or similar - "Delete - not notable enough"/"Keep - notable enough") the proposition, or a previous vote - behaviour which is considered trolling, since you are essentially dismissing someone else's vote as being invaliad, and worth less than your own. WP:NPA. Chris 00:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- When I give a reason, I'm criticised for trolling. When I don't give a reason, I'm criticised for that. I think people just want me not to vote in the first place. anthony 警告 19:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's a good thing not to vote without a reason, but think that Geogre is being a bit too harsh in his criticism that Anthony is voting to keep a copyvio. I really doubt Anthony means to do that. --Improv 19:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I see no proof that this is a copyright violation, and VFD is not the place to list copyright violations anyway. I will clarify, though, that I only think we should keep if it is not a copyright violation or if it is rewritten. I think that's obvious, though. I wouldn't vote to keep illegal material, and whether or not to keep illegal material isn't something we should be voting on in the first place. anthony 警告 18:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, I noted correctly that what you had been accused of was a string of "keep" votes, and particularly "keep not" followed by whatever the nominator had said. Here, the nominator said that the article was copyvio. Usually, folks stop voting when they see that, because they figure the article will go to the copyvio page and be deleted or not that way. For you to vote "keep" without indicating that you had reason to believe that it was not copyvio, without refutation of that charge at all, sure looked like you were giving a non-deliberative "keep" vote on an article where only two votes had been cast (and therefore where your one vote would mean keeping the article). Since that meant, essentially, that we'd keep copyright violating material, I couldn't ignore it. It's not persecution: it's concern over whether we run legal liability. Geogre 02:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Accused of? I'm not sure what you're saying. This isn't what the arb committee had a problem with, because I was making these votes while at the same time the arb committee said I had stopped trolling. I assume the article was listed on the copyvio page (if not it should be). I have taken no position on that page. If the consensus there is to delete, then obviously we should delete regardless of the result of VFD. I don't think we should keep copyright violating material. I just think we should keep this if it otherwise survives the copyright problems page. In any case, we run no legal liability unless/until there is a DMCA takedown notice issued. anthony 警告 02:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That is the kind of behavior that did get you listed: voting keep without rationale to countervene what has already been established: this is a copyright violation. You are thereby voting for us to keep illegal material. Geogre 18:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 19:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jayjg 00:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Ashiibaka tlk 06:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.